Failed Hypothesis!?!

[EpistemiX]

The proportion of atheists among LGBT people is higher than the general population. The USA boasts a whopping 50% of LGBT's identifying as atheist.

To me, it seems the plight to increase the rights of LGBT's has been traditionally opposed by religion. For example, attempts to reduce the stigma of HIV/AIDS, sex education, have been opposed by religion in some form or the other.

However, these supposed arguments do not come without their counterparts within the secular world. take for example the medical complex and how homosexual folk are unable to give blood at blood banks. A construct totally devoid of any religious influence and based solely on the well-being of its' medical patients.

Some other examples come to mind, but instead of turning this first post into a play off between religious and secular ideals, I'd like to read your opinions on the nuanced and ironic prejudice presented by the secular "free thinking" world instead.

Why does secular idealism often contradict its' own principled teachings when it comes to LGBT?

And is secularism a failed hypothesis?

To further the nuance, I'd like to point out that despite trends in secularization occurring in rich nations, this does not mean that the world as a whole has become less religious.

1. People of virtually all industrially advanced nations have been moving toward more secular orientations during the past fifty years. Nevertheless,

2. The world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before - and they constitute a growing proportion of the world's population.

Your thoughts, are most welcome!

 

[JoChris]

I will defend secular society here:
LGBTQ (etc) citizens in modern societies should have rights to personal freedom, personal safety, no discrimination from non-religious workplaces/ schools, (if legal) secular marriage. People with rights also have responsibilities. Society has the right to expect LGBTQ (etc) people will not negatively affect other members of society at all.

E.g. expectation whoever donates blood will not put other people's health at risk. It is nothing personal. Many people are not permitted to donate blood either e.g. certain medications, heart disease, certain age. In Australia I have never seen any elderly people protest against ageism or drug users against judgementalism RE transfusion discrimination.

Whether gay men want to admit it or not, in Australia demographically they are most sexually active with multiple partners and even increasing HIV and STI rates (due to higher rates of unprotected gay sex). This is the one bad side to AIDS no longer being seen as an automatic death sentence.

Therefore secular society is being responsible by looking after the needs of the whole population and not the feelings of a few people who feel rejected.

Secular society is shrinking because sex has become separate from reproduction. Homosexuals will not actually reproduce without IVF or friends being surrogate parents for them.

Contraception of all forms is making atheists least like to have large families. Therefore religious people will certainly outnumber atheists within 1-2 generations. Some religions/ cultures do not value western culture education highly if at all. Falling education standards = more children.

In some parts of Australia there are higher numbers of aboriginal babies born than white kids. School absenteeism = more kids/ poorer families, creating vicious circle. In my local area the Christian homoschoolers have 5+ children. They won't have money to send all their kids to University, 100s of kms away.

So I am genuinely concerned that in a couple of generations that many parts of the world there will be genuine religious wars because of clash of cultures. Deaths, not Twitter wars.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I will defend secular society here:
LGBTQ (etc) citizens in modern societies should have rights to personal freedom, personal safety, no discrimination from non-religious workplaces/ schools, (if legal) secular marriage. People with rights also have responsibilities. Society has the right to expect LGBTQ (etc) people will not negatively affect other members of society at all.

E.g. expectation whoever donates blood will not put other people's health at risk. It is nothing personal. Many people are not permitted to donate blood either e.g. certain medications, heart disease, certain age. In Australia I have never seen any elderly people protest against ageism or drug users against judgementalism RE transfusion discrimination.

Whether gay men want to admit it or not, in Australia demographically they are most sexually active with multiple partners and even increasing HIV and STI rates (due to higher rates of unprotected gay sex). This is the one bad side to AIDS no longer being seen as an automatic death sentence.

Therefore secular society is being responsible by looking after the needs of the whole population and not the feelings of a few people who feel rejected.

Secular society is shrinking because sex has become separate from reproduction. Homosexuals will not actually reproduce without IVF or friends being surrogate parents for them.

Contraception of all forms is making atheists least like to have large families. Therefore religious people will certainly outnumber atheists within 1-2 generations. Some religions/ cultures do not value western culture education highly if at all. Falling education standards = more children.

In some parts of Australia there are higher numbers of aboriginal babies born than white kids. School absenteeism = more kids/ poorer families, creating vicious circle. In my local area the Christian homoschoolers have 5+ children. They won't have money to send all their kids to University, 100s of kms away.

So I am genuinely concerned that in a couple of generations that many parts of the world there will be genuine religious wars because of clash of cultures. Deaths, not Twitter wars.

Hi JoChris, The Scriptures says there WILL be wars or (persecutions) against the Godly (Saved) It will culminate or climax during the tribulation. (John 16:1-4) (Matt. 24:8-14) The Church (body of born again believers) do not judge those outside the Church, (God will do that) for we have to deal with people in the world, But it is sin in the Church body to have homosexual activity or relationships, and it is an abomination to God and His people. There is no mistaking God's instruction and dealings with homosexuality, it is not accepted in the Church and is judged as sin(for we are to judge sin in the Church) (1 Cor. 5:11-13). But the war or persecution will be against the Church (I'm speaking of born again believers here, not the visible Church). Healthy people are not born that way, For I have had to deal with some, it was a choice they decided on. And I have seen some repent and turn to Christ.

 

[EpistemiX]

I will defend secular society here:
LGBTQ (etc) citizens in modern societies should have rights to personal freedom, personal safety, no discrimination from non-religious workplaces/ schools, (if legal) secular marriage. People with rights also have responsibilities. Society has the right to expect LGBTQ (etc) people will not negatively affect other members of society at all.

I don't think this is exclusive only to secular societies but rather the exception than the rule. The clue is in the word "secularism" which by it's very core postulates an "us vs them" divide mechanic that is actually contradictory to freedom of choices being a prioritized and protected idea.

Whereas traditionally, theocracies have largely existed in history with very peaceful organisation and only occasionally been misrepresented by leaders who "used" (note this term is derogatory and not normative) religious propaganda wrongfully to oppress and war against it's own or other peoples.

Contrast this to the secular world and we find first world nations which invade the poverty stricken third world for its resources do so via an economic model whose largest economic factor is named "war economy". With war by concensus being pushed a priori we find that the secular claims fall rather flat on their upturned noses. I've still yet to see that proverbial nose bleed out. But shame would have it so that the face is hidden in lieu of even more circular rhetoric!

E.g. expectation whoever donates blood will not put other people's health at risk. It is nothing personal. Many people are not permitted to donate blood either e.g. certain medications, heart disease, certain age. In Australia I have never seen any elderly people protest against ageism or drug users against judgementalism RE transfusion discrimination.

Whether gay men want to admit it or not, in Australia demographically they are most sexually active with multiple partners and even increasing HIV and STI rates (due to higher rates of unprotected gay sex). This is the one bad side to AIDS no longer being seen as an automatic death sentence.

Ah, but morally is it (having many sexual partners and promiscuity which leads to depresssive disorders as well as have implications on health) objectively wrong? or does secular society claim there is no "objective morality" here??? do you see the problem now?

Therefore secular society is being responsible by looking after the needs of the whole population and not the feelings of a few people who feel rejected.

The irony being that in a truly secular model, atheism is a natural presupposition which has its' root philosophy well grounded in the idea of "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" a la Darwin's caveat that the sole reasons for existence are to "survive and reproduce". LGBT people often have shorter lives and cannot reproduce. So this compromised idealism fall way short of even it's own well intended meandering in lieu of the actual philosophy it is based on.

Secular society is shrinking because sex has become separate from reproduction. Homosexuals will not actually reproduce without IVF or friends being surrogate parents for them.

I admire your balance here, thank you!

Contraception of all forms is making atheists least like to have large families. Therefore religious people will certainly outnumber atheists within 1-2 generations. Some religions/ cultures do not value western culture education highly if at all. Falling education standards = more children.

In case you didn't know, atheists have always been the minority. Never the majority. It is only today, where China has more atheists than any other religiously defined group. But in the grander polemic of world statistics, we find that atheists are still casting the minority vote. And the LGBT community among them having only a percentage share of said vote.

In some parts of Australia in there are higher numbers of aboriginal babies born than white kids. School absenteeism = more kids/ poorer families, creating vicious circle. In my local area the Christian homoschoolers have 5+ children. They won't have money to send all their kids to University, 100s of kms away.

Is this due to the white population simply being less able to commit than aborigines among other factors? Secular idealism has destroyed the idea of marriage being something sanctified and sacred, yet among the aborigine (and native peoples of any 3rd world nation) the institute of marriage is still largely held as an idealism which is within the reach of the general populus to achieve.

So I am genuinely concerned that in a couple of generations that many parts of the world there will be genuine religious wars because of clash of cultures. Deaths, not Twitter wars.

Most of the wars in the past century were actually a-religious and very much politically motivated. It's interesting to note that atheists were an even smaller minority during the first two world wars, yet atheist dictators were largely responsible for the largest atrocities against humanity and this resulted in the uncountable loss of life based entirely on the hidden prima fascia of wars by concensus! If this is the model we are basing our current world on, than most of the wars we are facing and seeing today are actually a-religious in origin.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts JoChris

God bless,

 

[Kung Fu]

Secularists are some of the biggest hypocrites. It was pretty much proven in the thread about homosexuality vs incest.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/homosexuality-vs-incest-secularism.3880/unread

If you operate on a secular level and give rights to people based on the level of physical harm to others than a lot of things that remain illegal should be legal but yet it still remains illegal because they're deemed "bad" which is a further contradiction because from a secular point of view "bad" and "good" are subjective to the point where "bad" and "good" don't even exist.

 

[EpistemiX]

Secularists are some of the biggest hypocrites. It was pretty much proven in the thread about homosexuality vs incest.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/homosexuality-vs-incest-secularism.3880/unread

If you operate on a secular level and give rights to people based on the level of physical harm to others than a lot of things that remain illegal should be legal but yet it still remains illegal because they're deemed "bad" which is a further contradiction because from a secular point of view "bad" and "good" are subjective to the point where "bad" and "good" don't even exist.

potency!! the appeal to moral anchor is wearing thin in the secular world. Some claim it's a social construct. I guess that means the killing of Jews in nazi Germany was "ok" oh the hypocrisy. Well said Kung Fu, I like reading you bud!

 

[JoChris]

Hi JoChris, The Scriptures says there WILL be wars or (persecutions) against the Godly (Saved) It will culminate or climax during the tribulation. (John 16:1-4) (Matt. 24:8-14) The Church (body of born again believers) do not judge those outside the Church, (God will do that) for we have to deal with people in the world, But it is sin in the Church body to have homosexual activity or relationships, and it is an abomination to God and His people. There is no mistaking God's instruction and dealings with homosexuality, it is not accepted in the Church and is judged as sin(for we are to judge sin in the Church) (1 Cor. 5:11-13). But the war or persecution will be against the Church (I'm speaking of born again believers here, not the visible Church). Healthy people are not born that way, For I have had to deal with some, it was a choice they decided on. And I have seen some repent and turn to Christ.

Don't get me wrong, I was playing Devil's Advocate as I have the strong impression that no atheists ever type on this forum's religious section.

I was summarizing what I learned via nursing degree in the 90s, today's webpages' opinion pieces on health, gay rights, gay marriage, feminist "freedom of choice" advocates, and the many practical atheists' opinions in my own life.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[JoChris]

I don't think this is exclusive only to secular societies but rather the exception than the rule. The clue is in the word "secularism" which by it's very core postulates an "us vs them" divide mechanic that is actually contradictory to freedom of choices being a prioritized and protected idea.

They weren't really my own thoughts. I thought I should provide other side's viewpoint as the topic is unlikely to be discussed properly if I merely gave my personal religious viewpoints! For first time ever I agree with Kung Fu.

Now my perspective:
Secular societies are self-deceived in that they think their viewpoints are purely objective. They now demand that everyone be tolerant "just like them" in exactly the same way or face discrimination themselves.

Example: My sister was posting constant PRO-gay marriage posts last year on Facebook (here in Australia public vote gave thumbs up to gay marriage). Despite being an atheist my husband is against gay marriage, and even he posted a negative comment to one of her posts. It was deleted by Facebook. The non-PC perspective is not permitted on Facebook now.

Whereas traditionally, theocracies have largely existed in history with very peaceful organisation and only occasionally been misrepresented by leaders who "used" (note this term is derogatory and not normative) religious propaganda wrongfully to oppress and war against it's own or other peoples.

To be fair ( according to 21st century worldview) many non-Christian societies committed human sacrifice to their gods, abandoned sick and elderly and unwanted newborns; murder justified in peaceful times as well as war. Are you referring to Western Judeo-Christian cultures only?

Contrast this to the secular world and we find first world nations which invade the poverty stricken third world for its resources do so via an economic model whose largest economic factor is named "war economy". With war by concensus being pushed a priori we find that the secular claims fall rather flat on their upturned noses. I've still yet to see that proverbial nose bleed out. But shame would have it so that the face is hidden in lieu of even more circular rhetoric!

And then secular society then tries to blame all war on religion. Willful blindness on their part.

Ah, but morally is it (having many sexual partners and promiscuity which leads to depresssive disorders as well as have implications on health) objectively wrong? or does secular society claim there is no "objective morality" here??? do you see the problem now?

I totally agree with you. Mere *heterosexual* relationships outside of marriage can be the source of severe personal regret, shame and family conflict.
Feminists use single women with an active love life as an example to follow. High career + child-free + consensual multiple relationships. In reality they are becoming objects of pity as they get older, but woe betide anyone who points out the fact that men still want a "decent" woman as their own wife. Double standards will always be there, and no amount of whingeing from feminists will change that.
But same for women, they want a man who won't cheat on them. A serial bachelor in his 40s+ needs a lot of money to get the *same* amount of attention as in his 20s for them to take the risk. Older men shouldn't whinge either when "nice" women won't look at them any more. (We can tell a man without any morals too).

The irony being that in a truly secular model, atheism is a natural presupposition which has its' root philosophy well grounded in the idea of "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" a la Darwin's caveat that the sole reasons for existence are to "survive and reproduce". LGBT people often have shorter lives and cannot reproduce. So this compromised idealism fall way short of even it's own well intended meandering in lieu of the actual philosophy it is based on.

Atheists seem to ignore that reproduction is more than simply giving birth. A thinking woman will want a man who show signs of fidelity,
responsibility and hardworking values when she is considering a permanent life partner. A religious man/ traditional family values man is way more likely to stick around during the hard times as well as the good than a pleasure-lover. The religious man in turn wants a woman with same values as him. Therefore "multiple partners advocates" women and men will find it harder to find "decent people" as a spouse when they become mature enough to consider having a family.
Another issue -older people do have more reproduction problems than younger people. Older women will have fewer childbearing years and less children as a result than religious people who start having their children at a younger age.

In case you didn't know, atheists have always been the minority. Never the majority. It is only today, where China has more atheists than any other religiously defined group. But in the grander polemic of world statistics, we find that atheists are still casting the minority vote. And the LGBT community among them having only a percentage share of said vote.

Genuine atheists I think will always be the minority. Semi-atheists - those who live as if there is no God/gods are would be more common. People who live according to their society's customs are probably most common of all.

Is this due to the white population simply being less able to commit than aborigines among other factors? Secular idealism has destroyed the idea of marriage being something sanctified and sacred, yet among the aborigine (and native peoples of any 3rd world nation) the institute of marriage is still largely held as an idealism which is within the reach of the general populus to achieve.

The social workers, health professionals etc would have a way better understanding of what was going across Australia in aboriginal population overall. Big cities more likely to have partial aboriginal background, schooling like everyone else.

I only lived next door to true full-blood ones in a remote outback town for several months (never again would I choose to live next to them.) No English knowledge = no contraception education. The kids refused to go to school. From the amount of domestic violence we heard and amount of men arrested/ jailed for incest there recently it is easy to understand why there were so many aboriginal women had too many children in that town. (They had come in from more remote communities where r*pe/ incest/ alcoholism was like the plague.) So no, in that one area it was certainly NOT due to strong family commitments. *sad face*

 

[Douglas Summers]

I agree with you 100%.

Hi, Jo Chris, It is more like We agree with Christ. )

 

[JoChris]

Hi, Jo Chris, It is more like We agree with Christ. )

Very good observation, and the correct perspective. I am too good at leaving atheist glasses on mentally.
Thank you.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Secularists are some of the biggest hypocrites. It was pretty much proven in the thread about homosexuality vs incest.

Hi Kung Fu, This is how low a nation that was founded on Christian principles has fallen. And if congress could get their votes, they will support it, (web page below) Just as Obama supported the LGBTQ and lit up the white house with rainbow colors to honor the LGBTQ. I do not believe in harassing or badgering people, While if the opportunity would present itself I would tell them about Christ grace...and judgment to come, But the visible and SECULAR Church are marrying men with men and women with women, and even appointing gay priests! This is how the false prophet and the beast out of the sea beguile the world, They appeal to everyone...Except those who are sanctified (Rev. 13:1-18). I'm almost 73......I remember a more moral and God fearing America. Young people today have never known America as a moral country (not perfect), So the lack of morality and Spiritless churches is common place to many of this generation.
North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a p***phile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

 

[Kung Fu]

Hi Kung Fu, This is how low a nation that was founded on Christian principles has fallen. And if congress could get their votes, they will support it, (web page below) Just as Obama supported the LGBTQ and lit up the white house with rainbow colors to honor the LGBTQ. I do not believe in harassing or badgering people, While if the opportunity would present itself I would tell them about Christ grace...and judgment to come, But the visible and SECULAR Church are marrying men with men and women with women, and even appointing gay priests! This is how the false prophet and the beast out of the sea beguile the world, They appeal to everyone...Except those who are sanctified (Rev. 13:1-18). I'm almost 73......I remember a more moral and God fearing America. Young people today have never known America as a moral country (not perfect), So the lack of morality and Spiritless churches is common place to many of this generation.
North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a p***phile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

May God bless your soul.

Just out of curiosity how much do you know about Islam and its tenets?

 

[Douglas Summers]

May God bless your soul.

Just out of curiosity how much do you know about Islam and its tenets?

Just enough to know it has nothing to do with The salvation, mercy and grace of God, and everything to do with lying spirits. I have several books and a copy of the Karan, to try to understand how they believe, but it was a waste of Time and money. Christ's will was to preach the Gospel of which Islam will kill and have killed Christians for, There are different Sects, and they kill one another to meet virgins in heaven!!!!! I have a righteous anger for them and their murdering. But hell will also be full of false prophets and nominal (in name only) Christians also. We need to pray for each other to contend for the faith in these last days (Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 1:3; Eph. 6:10-12).
Love you in the Lord,
Douglas Summers

 

[Kung Fu]

Just enough to know it has nothing to do with The salvation, mercy and grace of God, and everything to do with lying spirits.

Do you believe the author of the Quran to be of the devil?

I have several books and a copy of the Karan, to try to understand how they believe, but it was a waste of Time and money. Christ's will was to preach the Gospel of which Islam will kill and have killed Christians for, There are different Sects, and they kill one another to meet virgins in heaven!!!!!

Can you please show me where Muslims are required to kill one another in order to meet virgins in heaven?

I have a righteous anger for them and their murdering. But hell will also be full of false prophets and nominal (in name only) Christians also. We need to pray for each other to contend for the faith in these last days (Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 1:3; Eph. 6:10-12).
Love you in the Lord,
Douglas Summers

Righteous anger sounds a contradicting term. Could you clarify with what you mean?

 

[Douglas Summers]

Righteous anger sounds a contradicting term. Could you clarify with what you mean?

A righteous anger is to be angry without condemnation or revenge, God will deal with the ungodly.

72 Virgins - WikiIslam


wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins
Although it does say they will receive a "great reward", and there are also hasan hadith which refer to 72 virgins as one of the "seven blessings from Allah" to the martyr, the Qur'an does not specify these virgins are a reward for jihadists/martyrs, but rather for any Muslim male who gains admittance to Paradise.
​

Do you believe the author of the Quran to be of the devil? The Quran is not of God KF. I don't think he was the devil, The author (Mohamed) practiced Judaism before he started his own religion, But if you are not influenced by God, Then it has to be against God. Those who are not with Him are against Him (Matt. 12:30)​

Can you please show me where Muslims are required to kill one another in order to meet virgins in heaven? They call it being a martyr. It is anyone who does not agree with the many off shoot of Islam, or anyone who does not follow their prophet.​

What Does Islamic Faith Promise Martyrs? - Live Science


www.livescience.com/6237-islamic-faith-promise-martyrs.html
Islamic extremists who believe in suicide bombing as martyrdom expect rewards in the afterlife, as specified by the Quran. According to the religious text of Islam, male martyrs will receive 72 virgin maidens in paradise as a reward for their sacrifice. ​

 

[Kung Fu]

A righteous anger is to be angry without condemnation or revenge, God will deal with the ungodly.
72 Virgins - WikiIslam





wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

Although it does say they will receive a "great reward", and there are also hasan hadith which refer to 72 virgins as one of the "seven blessings from Allah" to the martyr, the Qur'an does not specify these virgins are a reward for jihadists/martyrs, but rather for any Muslim male who gains admittance to Paradise.

Your link doesn't work. Also, the hadith that states that we'll get 72 virgins is a weak hadith and therefore Muslims don't believe that Muhammad(pbuh) said that and was wrongly attributed to him. Douglas, perhaps instead of getting your information from websites that lie about Islam and or your other Christian friends which most likely know nothing of Islam except for which they have been told by the media why not try to read the primary material for yourself?

Also, every healthy man in this life wants a beautiful woman because men are visual in nature which scientific data shows and so why would it be illogical if men were to enter Paradise that they wouldn't be rewarded with that if that's what they wanted?

Do you believe the author of the Quran to be of the devil? The Quran is not of God KF. I don't think he was the devil, The author (Mohamed) practiced Judaism before he started his own religion, But if you are not influenced by God, Then it has to be against God. Those who are not with Him are against Him (Matt. 12:30)

There is no evidence that shows Muhammad(pbuh) prior to Islam practiced Judaism and makes sense seeing as he wasn't Jewish. Also, how could Muhammad(pbuh) have been the author when he was illiterate as the evidence of his time claims? How could Muhammad(pbuh) have been the author when the Quran differentiates between "Kings" and "Pharaohs" of the different Egyptian time periods which we only found out recently thanks to historians and there study of Egyptology? The Bible got it wrong but yet the Quran 1400 years ago got it right when no human at the time could have known.

Can you please show me where Muslims are required to kill one another in order to meet virgins in heaven? They call it being a martyr. It is anyone who does not agree with the many off shoot of Islam, or anyone who does not follow their prophet.

What Does Islamic Faith Promise Martyrs? - Live Science





www.livescience.com/6237-islamic-faith-promise-martyrs.html

Islamic extremists who believe in suicide bombing as martyrdom expect rewards in the afterlife, as specified by the Quran. According to the religious text of Islam, male martyrs will receive 72 virgin maidens in paradise as a reward for their sacrifice.

The religious texts of Islam (Quran) says suicide is not allowed so how can they be martyrs if they kill themselves? The religious text of Islam which you are using is considered weak (in terms of the 72 virgins) and not accepted by Muslims in the sense that we don't believe Muhammad(pbuh) to have said that.

Douglas, it seems like you haven't done your research on Islam and are only parroting views which I can get from Fox, Answering-Islam, and or Wikiislam (which have actually created fake hadiths).

 

[EpistemiX]

They weren't really my own thoughts. I thought I should provide other side's viewpoint as the topic is unlikely to be discussed properly if I merely gave my personal religious viewpoints! For first time ever I agree with Kung Fu.

I think occasionally we can find everyone we know, agreeable. Could it be a sign?

Now my perspective:
Secular societies are self-deceived in that they think their viewpoints are purely objective. They now demand that everyone be tolerant "just like them" in exactly the same way or face discrimination themselves.

Example: My sister was posting constant PRO-gay marriage posts last year on Facebook (here in Australia public vote gave thumbs up to gay marriage). Despite being an atheist my husband is against gay marriage, and even he posted a negative comment to one of her posts. It was deleted by Facebook. The non-PC perspective is not permitted on Facebook now.

Offending any one group without check while claiming the first amendment is bound to make people who have a brain that works, upset. Thank God the USA is the only nation in the world that has this perversity pushed and other nations have built their tolerances based on not offending the "other".

Having said that, the United States of the Interwebs has its' own law of the jungle. And there are only two species inhabiting it. Human Beings and Trolls.

To be fair ( according to 21st century worldview) many non-Christian societies committed human sacrifice to their gods, abandoned sick and elderly and unwanted newborns; murder justified in peaceful times as well as war. Are you referring to Western Judeo-Christian cultures only?

No, but if I was, I could easily cite the scandals revolving around the mass baby burials in order to prove that even the mecca of the Christian faith literally had skeletons in that proverbial closet. To be honest, I think I'd be hard pressed to find a religion which has escaped this stigma. Even the Pre-Islamic Arabs used to (on occasion) bury their new-born female babies for fear of poverty. According to the little reading I have done from both secular and Islamic sources, I came to know that it was Mohamed, the Prophet, who had wiped this practice off the Arab psyche for good. In that way (and many others) he was quite revolutionary.

And then secular society then tries to blame all war on religion. Willful blindness on their part.

Secular atheism does (Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this), not sure secular society as an whole would agree though! Thank God, many secular people would not agree with Dawkins, right?

I totally agree with you. Mere *heterosexual* relationships outside of marriage can be the source of severe personal regret, shame and family conflict.
Feminists use single women with an active love life as an example to follow. High career + child-free + consensual multiple relationships. In reality they are becoming objects of pity as they get older, but woe betide anyone who points out the fact that men still want a "decent" woman as their own wife. Double standards will always be there, and no amount of whingeing from feminists will change that.
But same for women, they want a man who won't cheat on them. A serial bachelor in his 40s+ needs a lot of money to get the *same* amount of attention as in his 20s for them to take the risk. Older men shouldn't whinge either when "nice" women won't look at them any more. (We can tell a man without any morals too).

We are so on the same page haha! I cannot add to this^, I can only nod while I sip (and savour) my cappuccino!

Atheists seem to ignore that reproduction is more than simply giving birth. A thinking woman will want a man who show signs of fidelity, responsibility and hardworking values when she is considering a permanent life partner. A religious man/ traditional family values man is way more likely to stick around during the hard times as well as the good than a pleasure-lover. The religious man in turn wants a woman with same values as him. Therefore "multiple partners advocates" women and men will find it harder to find "decent people" as a spouse when they become mature enough to consider having a family.
Another issue -older people do have more reproduction problems than younger people. Older women will have fewer childbearing years and less children as a result than religious people who start having their children at a younger age.

Could it be, that this is what secular atheists fear the most? The fact that their own belief comes back to haunt them? The irony is prevalent, that secular atheist belief in evolution states that the only reason for existence is to survive and reproduce. Religious folk don't only excel at this whilst finding higher purpose to their lives, but the secular atheists actually suck at it (reproduction).

Genuine atheists I think will always be the minority. Semi-atheists - those who live as if there is no God/gods are would be more common. People who live according to their society's customs are probably most common of all.

Societal atheists are basically secular atheists, granted. However, what makes them fail above and beyond the causal nature of carnality is the fact that they do not marry as much as believers, even going to such lengths as using sex for pleasure instead of reproductions - the advent of contraceptive inventiveness of the modern age is a direct blow to the base and failed idealism they shout about - survival and reproduction! A deep and dark irony!!!!!!!!

The social workers, health professionals etc would have a way better understanding of what was going across Australia in aboriginal population overall. Big cities more likely to have partial aboriginal background, schooling like everyone else.

I only lived next door to true full-blood ones in a remote outback town for several months (never again would I choose to live next to them.) No English knowledge = no contraception education. The kids refused to go to school. From the amount of domestic violence we heard and amount of men arrested/ jailed for incest there recently it is easy to understand why there were so many aboriginal women had too many children in that town. (They had come in from more remote communities where r*pe/ incest/ alcoholism was like the plague.) So no, in that one area it was certainly NOT due to strong family commitments. *sad face*

I guess your "sample study" is a sound one, given that it is based on your own experiences and observations, and it's nice to know you are willing to accept it as such.

God bless

 

[Douglas Summers]

Your link doesn't work. Also, the hadith that states that we'll get 72 virgins is a weak hadith and therefore Muslims don't believe that Muhammad(pbuh) said that and was wrongly attributed to him. Douglas, perhaps instead of getting your information from websites that lie about Islam and or your other Christian friends which most likely know nothing of Islam except for which they have been told by the media why not try to read the primary material for yourself?

Also, every healthy man in this life wants a beautiful woman because men are visual in nature which scientific data shows and so why would it be illogical if men were to enter Paradise that they wouldn't be rewarded with that if that's what they wanted?




There is no evidence that shows Muhammad(pbuh) prior to Islam practiced Judaism and makes sense seeing as he wasn't Jewish. Also, how could Muhammad(pbuh) have been the author when he was illiterate as the evidence of his time claims? How could Muhammad(pbuh) have been the author when the Quran differentiates between "Kings" and "Pharaohs" of the different Egyptian time periods which we only found out recently thanks to historians and there study of Egyptology? The Bible got it wrong but yet the Quran 1400 years ago got it right when no human at the time could have known.



The religious texts of Islam (Quran) says suicide is not allowed so how can they be martyrs if they kill themselves? The religious text of Islam which you are using is considered weak (in terms of the 72 virgins) and not accepted by Muslims in the sense that we don't believe Muhammad(pbuh) to have said that.

Douglas, it seems like you haven't done your research on Islam and are only parroting views which I can get from Fox, Answering-Islam, and or Wikiislam (which have actually created fake hadiths).

Hi Kung Fu, Like the Bible, there are those that interpret the Quran and it's other publications and added scripts to relate. If you are Sunni or Shia, you are going to be at odds with Islam and what it teaches...They believe in different codes and differ in what writing are holy. Muhammad's mother Aminah was reportedly Jewish. I could go on with the history of his family and his Jewish wives, but it might not fit your narrative. We tend to find false information about many thing....unless it proves what we believe (whether true or not) I have no interest in a sex life in heaven (Matt. 22:29-31) I have no interest in Islam. I have studied a little more than you think I have about many religions, they all pale when compared to Christ, in whom I was born again (with His Spirit) I have had visions and talked with God and seen him perform many miracles. I do not mean to defame your belief in Islam, If that is your god, then worship him....I believe the word of God against the Quran.
In His eternal Mercy and Grace,
Douglas Summers

 

[DesertRose]

For informational purposes from our own sources.

Btw: Everyone is entitled to walk the path they wish however they should do so after ascertaining the truth not just by looking at prejudiced sources. After conveying the message ....we say, "to you your path and to us ours."..
source: https://islamqa.info/en/27093

The differences between Christianity and Islam
Praise be to Allaah.
There are many great factors that widen the gaps between Muslims and Christians. The differences in belief between us and them do not let us get close unless they give up their kufr (disbelief) and misguidance, and join the monotheists who believe in One Lord and God, and bear witness that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is His Messenger, and believe that ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) was a human being.

These are the most significant deviations in their religion, which widen the gap between us Muslims and them:

1. The Christian belief that the Messiah is the son of God.

2. The Christian belief that the Messiah (peace be upon him) is a god alongside God and that he is the second person of the holy trinity, according to their beliefs.

3. The belief that divinity may be incarnated in humanity.

4. The belief that God is formed of three Persons, which is known as the doctrine of the trinity.

5. The Christian belief that the Messiah (peace be upon him) was crucified by the Jews on the command of Pontius Pilate, and that he died on the cross.

6. The Christian belief that the Messiah died on the cross as a ransom for mankind and as expiation for original sin.

7. The Christian attitude towards the Jews who disbelieved in Jesus (peace be upon him) and claimed that they crucified him and killed him, and they accused his mother Mary (Maryam) of fornication – of which she was innocent – yet despite all that their attitude towards them today is one of support and loyalty, and their attitude towards the Muslims who venerate Jesus (peace be upon him) and his mother is one of enmity and disavowal.

8. Their distortion of the Book of God the Gospel (Injeel), whether they distorted the words by changing them or by adding words, or they distorted the meaning, and in doing that they attribute things to God that cannot be attributed to Him.

9. The doctrine of redemption, which is their belief that God sent His only son to redeem mankind from a sin committed by the father of mankind (Adam – peace be upon him), but God was unable to forgive his sin, so He sent His only son who had no sin, to sacrifice himself in order to do away with sin. This is an attribution of imperfection to the Lord of the Worlds and a denial of the fact that Adam (peace be upon him) repented and Allaah saved the Messiah (peace be upon him) from death.

10. Their disbelief in the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), even though he is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments.

11. Their belief in the soundness of the distorted Torah that they have in front of them today, which contains insults against God, describing Him as having shortcomings, and insults against the Prophets and Messengers, saying things that one can hardly dare utter, but we mention them in order to highlight the abhorrent nature of the kufr (disbelief) that they follow. They describe God as weeping with regret for the Flood which drowned the people of Noah, until His eyes became sore, and the angels came to visit Him – exalted be He far above that.

They describe Lot (peace be upon him) as committing incest with his two daughters, and Noah as drinking wine until he became drunk and his ‘awrah (nakedness) became visible. And there are even more foolish stories than that.

See Hidaayat al-Hayaara fi Awbah al-Yahood wa’l-Nasaara by Ibn al-Qayyim; Naqd al-Nasraaniyyah by Dr. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Saheem

And Allaah knows best.

 

[Kung Fu]

I have had visions and talked with God and seen him perform many miracles.

I asked you questions but you didn't answer them sadly. I think this is where our conversation ends. Thanks for the discussion anyhow.