I have sad news for most "fundys". Babies have erections in the womb. Children have sexual feelings and will eventually act on them in one way or another. So it only makes sense to confront that reality and educate them on how to deal with these feelings. (including birth control)
You know, it seems that fundies think sex ed means teaching kids how to get it on, when in fact it's more about the physiology and anatomy of reproduction as well as the risks and benefits, and naturally contraseption being a part of it. owever to me, it always seemed like general knowledge and biology behind it was more important than teaching kids how to wrap a rubber on their dicks.
Abstinence Only Education is one of the most irresponisble things happining to our childrens education today! Explaining what STD's, AIDS, and pregnacy cause and not explaining any other way to provent these things other than abstinence is rediculous and sometimes deadly! Plus, if you are teaching abstinance only, you are leaving out homosexuals!
If abstinence education actually made people abstinent, it would be great for population reduction. It would also be great for preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually-transmitted infections. As you know, though, it doesn't work for any of those things.
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
I think there is a proper time and place for it, that's all, not that we shouldn't do it. Where one can experience it the best, and get the most joy out of it.
That argument doesn't work, just because kids are wanting to get it on means would should just go ahead and let them?? lol. That's like saying since there's murder we shouldn't bother to stop it.
The difference is that there's no "murdering instinct". But there are "reproductive instincts".
To avoid people being fat, would you prohibit fast food ? Or just EXPLAIN it can be eaten with care ?
The same with sex. Rather than trying to lead NATURALLY HORNY people (like teenagers) to avoid having sex (what does never work), you can explain them how to have sex safely (in terms of mental and body health, in terms of procreation).
Right, there is, but that reproductive instinct is being abused, and def. not being used to reproduce. Just cause you have an instinct doesn't mean you should obey it.
Again, it doesn't matter if someone is naturally horny, it's what's best for them, what can protect them, not just the body but the emotional stuff as well. It's not worth the consequences that can result from it.
Not all of us do. I know and agree, that's why I said there is a proper time for it.
Abstinence doesn't mean prohibit forever, just until the time is right. And I believe education should be done also.
No it does not result in abnormal behavior. What can result from it is STD's, which can be gotten through skin to skin contact...condoms don't cover everything. Not to mention emotional damage. There are 19 million new nfections every year...con.------------
----------half of those are ppl from 15-24. and you think we should let everyone obey their sex drive?
What are the abstinence states? Maybe it's not being taught properly idk, ...point being doesn't mean we should not try at all. I'm for anything that will cut down on pregnancy, abortion, STD's, etc.
Dude, you can't be serious?? No, that's why it's called an STD...SEXUALLY transmitted disease. Of course if you've got an open cut or something and somebody with aids is bleeding and it gets on you..then yes..but that's not what we're talking about.
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is only transmitted through bodily fluids like blood, semen, vaginal secretions, and sometimes breast milk. A handshake, under normal circumstances, won't transmit the virus. Unless some fluid carrying the virus comes in contact with your bloodstream, you can't get AIDS through casual contact.
The arguement was to teach kids safe sex, rather then telling them not to do it and saying nothing more.
'Abstinence only' DOESN'T educate about safe sex, it just tells you don't do it. A proper sex education would prevent pregnancy or spread of STDs, rather then leaving them in the dark, trying to (or not trying to) fight the sex drive.
I've always understood abstinence as telling them to wait until the right time along with education about sex, now if it's just telling them then I disagree with the way it's taught. I'm in favor of a combination. What I was not in favor of was letting kids run off like rabbits to do it.
I feel that I have to point out in regards to the suicide rate comment that Japan is actually recorded to have the highest number of suicides. They even have a "suicide forest" and from what I understand that is what they call it over there as well. But there suicide rate is often attributed to their culture regarding "honor" and "you can't fail" mentality.
i think so mainly because of grades i remember learning that they would suicide because of how hard they are pushed to get perfect grades and then there honor and stuff like that.
Yes. The highest suicide rate in the world, in fact, is among Japanese children below the age of ten. Their parents get angry / just don't care about the kids any more if the child doesn't make perfect grades or get into the best school possible, and the children get so depressed, they kill themselves. It's not about Atheism, mind you, but just strict-ness to the extreme.
Yes, the Texas statement is true. I'm from there and it's depressing to see all the young single mothers. Abstinence is terrible and teaches nothing. I learned by asking questions and by research. It's a shame young men aren't shown how to use a condom. I never saw a female condom, lubricant or anything of that nature until after high school. When will birth control become an OTC? Ignorance in NOT bliss when it comes to sex education! Fundies never learn.
lol I seriously didn't get the "everything _but_ plan" joke until he mentioned that thing he wasn't going to say in the end.. you know.. that rude word =S I can't say it
You know, those crazy kids fucking each other up the ass
Japan does not have a low suicide rate. But, to be fair, the high rate is not due to religion but the incredible amount of stress put onto them, mainly concerning their school system.
What? Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide per capita in the world. It's higher than China and America, both of which have way more people. And this has been going on for nearly a decade.
11th? Out of how many countries? I'm not sure whose stats you're using, so I don't know if it only includes developed countries, but 11th is a pretty damn high rank. You've just proved my point that Japan has a near epidemic rate of suicide. As I stated, it has more suicides than many countries with 2-3 times its population.
Out of all countries. And you changed what you said. You actually said the highest in the world. Lithuania is the highest. Yes I agree its an "epidemic". But i was arguing it's not the highest. Yes higher in the U.S.A. but not the highest. It's lower per capita than 11 countries.
Therefore, it is UNNATURAL to resist that urge. Ironically, the "unnatural" argument is generally the argument against homosexuality. Now, I am not so inclined but where people put their genetalia is none of my concern unless we get into the subject of rape, incest or sex w/children.
But couldn't I argue that human constructions are natural? Just like a bee hive is considered natural and a termite nest is considered natural. If other creatures' constructions are considered to be natural, then why can't ours be? The word natural is a very vague term, as it could mean absolutely anything and everything!
There's even a specific fallacy for the term: the naturalist fallacy, which states that because something is natural does not necessarily mean it is good (or bad).
Well natural doesn't define good or bad, it is just reality. The reality is a car is natural, and causes problems. A vaccine is natural but can have good effects. The natural has no bearing on good or bad, and it doesn't claim to.
The word natural itself brings up more problems. I don't think that you can argue that anything is inherently natural or unnatural, it's just another way of justifying a position without evidence. It's so nonspecific: do you mean a part of nature? Naturally occurring? Part of the natural order of things? I would argue that anything that doesn't break the laws of physics and isn't unbreakable or immortal is natural in that it exists in the same reality that we do.
Everything in reality is natural. That's what I said, concurring with your statement of anything that doesn't break the laws of physics is natural. Anything else is supernatural, which I doesn't exist.
Actually, all 'supernatural' things are just outside the scope of science. It doesn't mean they don't exist; it just means we can't know whether they exist or not. It also makes the probablility of them existing laughable, since there's no way to tell =)
I agree completely. I can't prove they aren't there, but that's not my job. My job is to defend what I think is there. I'm glad you agree they are laughable, because that is absolutely true. lol. I appreciate the back and forth. I got my main source of wiki for the stats, although I didn't just use that as a primary. There are results in newspapers and the like covering the suicide rate in different countries individually. In this case wiki is pretty accurate. I hate wiki in most cases..
Awesome. I just said that because I see so many people saying lack of evidence isnt evidence of existence, while too many of these same people forget that lack of evidence isnt evidence of nonexistence. And these persons label their notions as science. Science is not about blanket assumptions, regardless of the subject. But Im glad you realize this. Its refreshing.
It's just entomology, which you can argue over endlessly. They may or may not be the same thing, but regardless their all still non-phrases because things are either natural (real) or supernatural (probably not real). Anything arguing specificity of either of those ideas is silly.
Brevity is a virtue. I didnt know whether you were aware that you said the same thing three times, despite your explanation. And, actually, natural vs. supernatural isnt an issue of real vs. not real, but provable vs. not provable. Science cant say whether supernatural phenomena exist because, by definition, they are beyond the scope of science. Accuracy is a virtue as well. It is not silly to ensure that you say what you mean, especially in a debate.
When our lifespan was only about 40 years, when we were in our teenage years essentially 1/3 to 1/2 of our life was over. It was necessary to procreate and be "married" by then which wouldn't you know it also coincided with out biological urge to do so. Now that our lifespan has doubled and modern convenience has extended our adolescence we now have the misfortune of not being mentally mature enough (if we ever were) to handle the hormone-crazed drive to procreate because of biology.
I wrote a book about relationship and marriage in a way different than how must people woud argue it. I hope some of you would evaluate my book: The Ultimate Goal of Life: Sacred Genetic Code Theory. Thank you.
some "christians" say that God gave us free will because HE "loves" us. Let's examine that for a second.If I LOVE my kid, am I going to give him free will to play in the street and get hit by a car? Then why would God give us free will knowing that we would end up being tortured FOREVER in His basement (Hell) for sinning? If you think that is justified, then your god's an ASS! If I were God and I knew people would end up in Hell because of free will, I wouldn't give it to them.
the way I think of it is this....Is there any...ANY possible thing that your kid could do, that justifies you being allowed to tie them up, and torture them in your basement for years until they die? If your answer is no you love them, then why should god be able to do even worse that than and still claim he loves? Do we love more?
He was a woman 1st. Was taking testosterone to switch to a man but was pre-op. Just had the facial hair and kinda body like a dude thing going on. His girlfriend was sterile and couldn't bear a child so they choose to impregnate him/her before he/she went for the operation to become a full blown man...I think.
We are just talking about if 2 people of the same gender has sex, and how it is impossible for them to have kids. Unless one is actually a different gender, and has those organs functional, they can not create a child.
Dolly was an ewe (July 5, 1996 February 14, 2003), remarkable in being the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell, using the process of nuclear transfer. She was cloned by Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland.
According to Wikipedia, men are obsolete. Women now become pregnant without us.
It does, but you dont need to be a scientists to reproduce, you need a scientists to clone someone, haha. Look at the idiots in Texas who passed laws to teach creation in schools, they somehow figured out how to reproduce. So it doesn't take much, barely a brain. Cloning on the other hand takes very intelligent people that know what they are doing for the most part.
That, and that scientists like Steven Hawking is wasting his life to lie to us all, and God is changing the rules for advancements we are making in the medical industry, it isn't because evolution is true.
Pretty much, if Creation is true, Steven Hawking and many other scientists are devoting their lives to science just to lie to everyone. So God just changes the rules so we have medical advancements instead of evolution actually being true.
Mainly I am just pointing out that Steven Hawking's life is a shame according to creationist, and many other scientists, even Einstein, because they think theories are just concepts, and don't understand what a scientific theory is.
I find it unsettling that you think exploring sexuality is sinful. Biologically, humans are not monogamous, so I don't see how sex is something that should be kept into the bounds of marriage. You're religious beliefs are you're beliefs and you are entitled to them however so it's cool. But I think that ignoring safe sex education is damaging and parents who are too uncomfortable talking openly and honestly about sex to their kids is too.
"I find it unsettling that you think exploring sexuality is sinful. Biologically, humans are not monogamous, so I don't see how sex is something that should be kept into the bounds of marriage. You're religious beliefs are you're beliefs and you are entitled to them however so it's cool. But I think that ignoring safe sex education is damaging and parents who are too uncomfortable talking openly and honestly about sex to their kids is too."
Which is your way of saying "I don't have a good argument to counter this so I'm going to pretend it's beneath me". Ok, fair enough. We win the argument then.
As long as teens understand what their getting into and use the proper, safe methods; I seen no problem if they choose to explore their sexuality. We as humans are sexual beings, sex is natural and nothing to me ashamed of. Sex is a stress reliever, it adds a demension of emotion into a relationship and frankly it's fun. Obviously sex is risky though. Masturbation is the best alternative for teens IMO.
I believe sexuality is part of our being n is a gift that should b explored n experienced IN the bounds of how God designed it. Well that's if the person desires 2 experience sex to its FULLEST capacity. Anything less is 'uncivilized'....lol I mean 2 each his own, just long as we take accountability 4 the consequences of abusing the gift.
BTW I'm an adult and a single mom...so I speak fm 'personal' experience. Bless!
WOW. Desiring the gift of sex 2 be sacred by limiting it 2 the bounds of marriage (a love covenant btwn a man and a woman) for the stability of the family and ultimately the society, is looked upon with disgust. How ironic...
You have misunderstood. They are not bashing individuals who wish to to practice Abstinence. They are criticizing the religiously motivated practice of teaching Abstinence Only. That some teenagers don't want to have sex before marriage is ok and no body should force them to take sex-ed if they don't want to, but to deny those that want to have sex the knowledge on how to practice safe sex and avoid pregnancy is idiotic. And, as they remark here; does not work.
Please, don't let your ignorance cloud the truth about abstinence, you're twisting Vilhem86's statement. If you believe that abstinece is the best choice for teens, good for you and it should always be noted that it is an option. However it is silly to ignore safe sex methods because of that belief. 1 out of 4 teen girls have an STD, and this was under an abstinece-only education. This system is not clearly not working, mo batter how sacred sex in the bounds of marriage may or not may be.
I KNOW that sex w/in the bonds of a loving marriage btwn a man n wmn is the BEST 4 nt only the couple but also the family n society. 'Unsafe-sex' is NOT the cause of the rise of STDs, abortions, n teenage pregnancy. PROMISCUITY, FORNICATION, n ADULTERY is the cause. Want proof 4 that claim? Hav EVERY1 wait until their married n NO1 cheat on their spouse n I can GARUNTEE all these negative side effects will subside. I agree tho that ppl should have the option 2 use protection....but bcuz of sin.
It's not about benefits, it's about rights. If someone wishes to do it then what right do you, or anyone else, have to tell them that they can't. Of course there is a risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but if they want to risk it then that is their business. This idea of "let's not teach them about sex in the hope that they will get scared and not do it" is not working. Marriage is just a promise, there is nothing magical about it that will make sex ok.
I NEVER disagreed with allowing some1 their 'freewill' or 'right' 2 sin. However what I disagree with is their 'attitude' towards abstinence-only prgms. I disagree w/ their reasoning on WHY stds n unwanted pregnancy is rising. It's NOT due 2 not educating on 'safe-sex'. The credit belongs 2 SIN. Having 'safe-sex' DOESN'T mk it right. Having 'right-sex' does. Bless.
Btw ppl will more than likely ABUSE something they have VERY little understanding of (marriage n sex).
"Unsafe-sex' is NOT the cause of the rise of STDs, abortions, n teenage pregnancy. PROMISCUITY, FORNICATION, n ADULTERY is the cause."
... what? Promiscuity, fornification and adultry that leads to unwanted pregnancies, STD's, ect BECAUSE of unsafe sex methods. Sorry but this argument is illogical and further demonstrates that teens need to learn safe sex practices. BTW people who are not promiscuous and adulters can get STD's and get pregnant, so this argument is rather moot.
Promiscuity (unwed sex w/ various partners), Fornication (unwed sex), n Adultery (spouses who have sex outside of marriage) is the reason for the rise in STDs, unwanted pregnancies. Truth CANNOT be denied.
when you're promiscuous,adulterous or getting unwanted pregnancies you're most probably having unsafe sex.which causes the rise of STD's.whether unfaithful ro whatever,the minute you have insafe sex,you stand the risk of gettin infected and infecting others,so i'm going to agree with
by safe sex do you mean outside marriage?cause besides family planning that's the only reason I see fit for condoms in marriage.And from what i understand god inteded for sex only in marriage.
Why would the all powerful creator of all the cosmos, the being who is eternal and all-knowing really give a flying fuck about where anyone's sex lives?
What makes you think if He didn't give a 'flying f' about ur sex life, more than likely He also wouldn't give a 'flying f' about ur very existence n u wouldn't even b here 2 ask that question. Think about it....
Because its a little silly to imagine a being of that power caring where a person's penis goes. I also tend to notice that people who think he does tend to be intellectually immature, the same people who anthropomorphize God. Based on your spelling I see that you are one of those...
LoL Hun, I'm 2 grwn 2 get offended easily, esp by some1 who doesn't know me. Let's deal wit the issue. God DOES care how ppl use/abuse His gift (sex). He cares else He wouldn't warn us about its neg consequences (if abused). However He's granted man FREWILL. Thus making them accountable for their actions irt His gift. What's 'silly' is 2 nt heed those warnings n dive headlong into a world of trouble. Bless.
But God is omniscient, omnipotent, and the the creator. Therefore God knew, when He created us, which of us would do what. We have free will perhaps, but God knows our choices and created us in such a way that we would make those choices. God chose who would sin.
The ONLY 'way' God created man was GOOD and FREE. God's omniscience doesn't eradicate man's freewill and accountability. God chose who would exist. Man chose who would sin.
Either way you look at it Hell was created as a place for those who don't agree with the concept of the judeao-christian God. It's no less severe or preposterous because he "allows" us to fuck up.
If rationalists, atheist and agnostics, started to treat you unfairly and told you that you would be put to death, but worse than that, killed over and over again and suffer for all eternity you would claim to be a martyr for your cause.
No. Hell was prepared 4 the devil n his angels. Unfortnately those who reject God, as they did, will receive the same justice as they will. It's not 'severe/preposterous' is what we call JUSTICE. Esp given the fact that God provided a way 2 escape. Don't blame God 4 ur 'f ups' n just reward (hell). REPENT N TURN TO CHRIST N U WILL BE SAVED. Paul Washers' statement rings tru "Man would rather be their own god and go to hell, then escape hell by bowing the knee". Sad...
But if God didn't want us to sin, why did we sin? If He created us to choose not to sin, then we wouldn't have sinned because God is omniscient and omnipotent. Once again, if God didn't want us to sin, He wouldn't have created us in such a fashion that we would choose sin. Or else He wouldn't have created of devil. Or else He wouldn't have created sin--God had to have, ultimately, produced sin, since He made everything. The devil may have made it (or whatever you believe), but God made him.
My friend. God choose 2 create us to have FREEWILL. However automatically with freewill comes the possibility of sin. God didn't choose us to sin, but to have freewill. WE choose to sin. To blame God for His creations FREE CHOICE is absurd. God made us, and made EVERYTHING initially GOOD. But WE introduced sin because of FREEWILL.
Its people like you that is the reason why we have problems in the first place. Stop talking about what God did or did not do as if this character is real. You don`t know if there is a God, so your rants about what he or she did is pointless. Focus on what is real and leave this none sense for the cartoons.
I agree, but the problem isn't the invisible guy, its people using the idea of the invisible guy to control a large crowd and usually leading to mass ignorance and prejudice. Lets say you are playing that old classic Lemmings. If you as a player are completely fucked up, it's natural to expect your lemmings will mess up and die all the time. This is how i see religion, on a way larger scale, of course.
It's one thing to challenge youth to wait for a while on sexual activity, but scaring the hell out of them and telling them a condom is a provision for sin is irresponsible! If you want the information that your church won't tell you about premarital sex in the Bible go to the site below.
yes, the bible's laws are GREAT! Stoning children who misbehave, killing the entire world (except for 8 people), the wholesale gang-rape of every young woman in a conquered city.
abstinence-only "education" is going to result in MORE unwanted pregnancies and abortions instead of preventing them. A % Kids are going to have sex in their teen years regardess of what you teach them, thers no avoiding in it many cases, just look at Sarah Palin's knocked up daughter. If you leave them ignorant and unaware of consequences, they're WORSE OFF cause when they end up doing it anyway, they don't know about STDs, pregnancy, etc. and just think they have to confess on Sunday.
If I was wrong, and there's a bunch of "research" that supports the claim, it should be readily available to someone for a quick rebuttal.
You guys really shouldn't be assholes...wanna know why? Because you're watching this badass show for entertainment, that's why. Just cut the crap: refute what I've said, or simply accept it. Not a one of you has actually acknowledged my criticism. You've all just attempted to deter me or deny it.
No one has acknowledged your criticism because it is invalid and you come across as a petulant and annoying. To refute the myth that more religious belief results in more successful societies, Matt cited a paper showing the opposite correlation. He gave Japan and Sweden as two examples of the more atheistic societies in the study. The important part is the trend. Do you understand what a trend is?
Matt made no statements specifically claiming that Sweden had a lower suicide rate. I've listened to it twice now. But as matter of fact, it took me all of two seconds to find the paper:
"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health
with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous
Democracies"
In that paper you will find that Sweden does have a lower suicide rate than the US among 15-24 year olds (looks like 11 versus 8.5 suicides per 100,000). Will you STFU now?
Yet what he says offhand without a single piece of supporting research somehow negates studies that I've accessed through a search engine?
The fuck does google have to do with what I found on the other end?
At any rate, you shouldn't be accepting everything someone says just because they're on an atheist program. I LOVE the show, I love all these guys, hell, I wish I lived in Austin and I'd come to their meetings. That has nothing to do with this. I want a legit rebuttal...should be easy.
One of my favorite joke shirts has the words "Abstinence" written above, then a portrait of the Virgin Mary in the middle and Below "Works 99.999% of the time" Cracks me up every time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Quick comment: I'm really disgusted at the inability of the atheist community to address a legitimate comment. I expect this from Christians, but look at my previous comments. They've been downrated, as though they were profane or illegitimate. Try and READ the comments before you discredit them please. Speak with your words and not with your thumbs.
Are the Netherlands Sweden? Is that not a legitimate negation? Meanwhile his comment is rated up for its factual fuckup.
I don't seem to recall mentioning "Sweden" the "Netherlands" or anything else related to geography, politics or any similar matter. I also do not make it a habit to up or down grade comments. (because whats the point?) I can only infer that you commented on my comment by accident, to which I can only reply by quoting you; "Try and READ the comments before you discredit them please."
I didn't comment on your comment. It wasn't a reply. I just posted another comment.
There's two options: Post a text comment, and reply. I chose "Post a text comment." I didn't refer specifically to you. Your post was completely unrelated to what we were talking about.
If euthanasia "may" be classified as suicide in the statistics?
The argument goes like this: either euthanasia is "assisted suicide" or it is HOMICIDE. Which of those equals suicide?
If assisted suicide qualifies as suicide, I'd love to know about that. Show me evidence of one instance of euthanasia being included as suicide and I'll consider your point.
Oh...and the Netherlands aren't Sweden. Go take a look at a map please. What a waste of an objection.
wot ever ur on about here its has never been the really argument for euthanasia. some times death is a better way then yrs in constant suffering... some people actually live in a hell, and others (many religious) are happy to watch(i say watch but its likely they never see someone truly live in pain with no hope)
i this this guy was my grandads doctor!!!!
Vault87Fallout 3 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience
fuck abstinance
we need sex education
ThePeacefulAtheistt 8 months ago 6
#573 lol
flamingspinach 1 year ago
I guess that the "everything BUTT plan" LOL
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
I have sad news for most "fundys". Babies have erections in the womb. Children have sexual feelings and will eventually act on them in one way or another. So it only makes sense to confront that reality and educate them on how to deal with these feelings. (including birth control)
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
You know, it seems that fundies think sex ed means teaching kids how to get it on, when in fact it's more about the physiology and anatomy of reproduction as well as the risks and benefits, and naturally contraseption being a part of it. owever to me, it always seemed like general knowledge and biology behind it was more important than teaching kids how to wrap a rubber on their dicks.
pienipaha 1 year ago
The »Everything butt« (secks) plan 9:00, very funny. :-)
leporidus 2 years ago
Abstinence Only Education is one of the most irresponisble things happining to our childrens education today! Explaining what STD's, AIDS, and pregnacy cause and not explaining any other way to provent these things other than abstinence is rediculous and sometimes deadly! Plus, if you are teaching abstinance only, you are leaving out homosexuals!
macrent2 2 years ago 8
The ending was hilarious!
madjimms 2 years ago 2
Only reason I can think of to actually promote abstinence is to slow the rate of overpopulation....
& with 6billion+ people I think were slowly getting to a choking point.
madjimms 2 years ago
If abstinence education actually made people abstinent, it would be great for population reduction. It would also be great for preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually-transmitted infections. As you know, though, it doesn't work for any of those things.
oraclecrank 2 years ago 3
indian kid is really hard to understand .. :S
maartsvenson 2 years ago
Comment removed
deniw 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
WOO GO SWEDEN!!!
peronkop 2 years ago
efefe
Flapjackoftheyear 2 years ago
Sex = fun! Fundies are against fun!
Perrine234 2 years ago 8
You mean Fundies= Fun Dies?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago 9
DISCO KILLS!
HHRB0664 2 years ago 4
I think there is a proper time and place for it, that's all, not that we shouldn't do it. Where one can experience it the best, and get the most joy out of it.
black9897 2 years ago
That argument doesn't work, just because kids are wanting to get it on means would should just go ahead and let them?? lol. That's like saying since there's murder we shouldn't bother to stop it.
black9897 2 years ago
The difference is that there's no "murdering instinct". But there are "reproductive instincts".
To avoid people being fat, would you prohibit fast food ? Or just EXPLAIN it can be eaten with care ?
The same with sex. Rather than trying to lead NATURALLY HORNY people (like teenagers) to avoid having sex (what does never work), you can explain them how to have sex safely (in terms of mental and body health, in terms of procreation).
pierrot79 2 years ago 3
Right, there is, but that reproductive instinct is being abused, and def. not being used to reproduce. Just cause you have an instinct doesn't mean you should obey it.
Again, it doesn't matter if someone is naturally horny, it's what's best for them, what can protect them, not just the body but the emotional stuff as well. It's not worth the consequences that can result from it.
black9897 2 years ago
"Just cause you have an instinct doesn't mean you should obey it. "
But what is clear is :
1/ we do obey it even when it is prohibited
2/ all will soon or later obey it
Thus it is worth educating than prohibiting.
"It's not worth the consequences that can result from it. "
What can result from sexual inhibition is sexual frustration and to later abnormal behavior.
In the US, we observe a higher pregnancy rate for the teenagers in the "abstinence" states. Failure !
pierrot79 2 years ago 2
Not all of us do. I know and agree, that's why I said there is a proper time for it.
Abstinence doesn't mean prohibit forever, just until the time is right. And I believe education should be done also.
No it does not result in abnormal behavior. What can result from it is STD's, which can be gotten through skin to skin contact...condoms don't cover everything. Not to mention emotional damage. There are 19 million new nfections every year...con.------------
black9897 2 years ago
----------half of those are ppl from 15-24. and you think we should let everyone obey their sex drive?
What are the abstinence states? Maybe it's not being taught properly idk, ...point being doesn't mean we should not try at all. I'm for anything that will cut down on pregnancy, abortion, STD's, etc.
black9897 2 years ago
sex isnt the only thing that involves skin contact
simplesumatra 2 years ago
What do you mean?
black9897 2 years ago
i mean there is skin contact with handshakes. Does that mean we can get aids from a handshake?
simplesumatra 2 years ago
Dude, you can't be serious?? No, that's why it's called an STD...SEXUALLY transmitted disease. Of course if you've got an open cut or something and somebody with aids is bleeding and it gets on you..then yes..but that's not what we're talking about.
black9897 2 years ago
the person said "skin contact" nothing about bodily fluids
simplesumatra 2 years ago
I thought you were commenting on what I said...about skin to skin contact in a sexual way.
black9897 2 years ago
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is only transmitted through bodily fluids like blood, semen, vaginal secretions, and sometimes breast milk. A handshake, under normal circumstances, won't transmit the virus. Unless some fluid carrying the virus comes in contact with your bloodstream, you can't get AIDS through casual contact.
oraclecrank 2 years ago 3
I know, i was only responfing to someone who said skin contact could give STDs
simplesumatra 2 years ago
thats not the point either, its not about "should we let them" the fact is you cant stop them....all you can do is protect them
boorens18 2 years ago
You can stop them, that's a self-defeating attitude. That's exactly my point, protecting them mentally, emotionally, and physically.
black9897 2 years ago
The arguement was to teach kids safe sex, rather then telling them not to do it and saying nothing more.
'Abstinence only' DOESN'T educate about safe sex, it just tells you don't do it. A proper sex education would prevent pregnancy or spread of STDs, rather then leaving them in the dark, trying to (or not trying to) fight the sex drive.
Marvintherobot8 2 years ago 36
I've always understood abstinence as telling them to wait until the right time along with education about sex, now if it's just telling them then I disagree with the way it's taught. I'm in favor of a combination. What I was not in favor of was letting kids run off like rabbits to do it.
black9897 2 years ago
Yaay I live in France 54% of Atheists !
LorentJovet 2 years ago 5
Could be much worse. :D
0121ryanh117 2 years ago
I feel that I have to point out in regards to the suicide rate comment that Japan is actually recorded to have the highest number of suicides. They even have a "suicide forest" and from what I understand that is what they call it over there as well. But there suicide rate is often attributed to their culture regarding "honor" and "you can't fail" mentality.
rylraven13 2 years ago 2
I love this channel.
JoeyMillsAround 2 years ago
I hate the jonahs brothers lol
JamesCalico 2 years ago 3
yaaay i live in the netherlands.
yakomuto 2 years ago 3
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 3
Anal sex... A hole nother' plan... Couldn't help it sorry haha.
91962 2 years ago 9
"Fundies"
ROTFL
jimmo42 2 years ago
Question about 6:35 , doesn't Japan actually have one of the more higher suicide rates?
gHZoDD 2 years ago
I did not think so, have any statistics.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
youtube wont let me post links but if you search up suicide rates, the link to these sites
WHO | World Health Organization
also Wikipedia list of countries by suicide rates
gHZoDD 2 years ago
i think so mainly because of grades i remember learning that they would suicide because of how hard they are pushed to get perfect grades and then there honor and stuff like that.
TheGeckoNinja 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
beekertaffy 2 years ago
Yes. The highest suicide rate in the world, in fact, is among Japanese children below the age of ten. Their parents get angry / just don't care about the kids any more if the child doesn't make perfect grades or get into the best school possible, and the children get so depressed, they kill themselves. It's not about Atheism, mind you, but just strict-ness to the extreme.
beekertaffy 2 years ago 3
Also they really force working hard in there society even in adulthood.
IdontlikeusingLOL 2 years ago
Haha, In the beginning its rated TV-G. Good show.
CriticalAtheist 2 years ago 11
Yes, the Texas statement is true. I'm from there and it's depressing to see all the young single mothers. Abstinence is terrible and teaches nothing. I learned by asking questions and by research. It's a shame young men aren't shown how to use a condom. I never saw a female condom, lubricant or anything of that nature until after high school. When will birth control become an OTC? Ignorance in NOT bliss when it comes to sex education! Fundies never learn.
Workaholic313 2 years ago 30
lol I seriously didn't get the "everything _but_ plan" joke until he mentioned that thing he wasn't going to say in the end.. you know.. that rude word =S I can't say it
You know, those crazy kids fucking each other up the ass
Baldurpet 2 years ago 3
everything butt plan
badderinperson 2 years ago
Japan does not have a low suicide rate. But, to be fair, the high rate is not due to religion but the incredible amount of stress put onto them, mainly concerning their school system.
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
Japans suicide rate per capita is lower. But if you compare just the number of suicides not per capita, the results look different.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
What? Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide per capita in the world. It's higher than China and America, both of which have way more people. And this has been going on for nearly a decade.
>.>
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
No it doesn't
It is11th highest per capita . Lithuania has the highest at 39 per 100,000. Japan is at 27 per 100,000.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
11th? Out of how many countries? I'm not sure whose stats you're using, so I don't know if it only includes developed countries, but 11th is a pretty damn high rank. You've just proved my point that Japan has a near epidemic rate of suicide. As I stated, it has more suicides than many countries with 2-3 times its population.
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
Out of all countries. And you changed what you said. You actually said the highest in the world. Lithuania is the highest. Yes I agree its an "epidemic". But i was arguing it's not the highest. Yes higher in the U.S.A. but not the highest. It's lower per capita than 11 countries.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
I actually said "one of the highest," but whatev =)
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
Ah. ok sorry about the misquote. I'm usually pretty good about that sort of thing.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
Therefore, it is UNNATURAL to resist that urge. Ironically, the "unnatural" argument is generally the argument against homosexuality. Now, I am not so inclined but where people put their genetalia is none of my concern unless we get into the subject of rape, incest or sex w/children.
Humanist555 2 years ago 7
a lot of things are unnatural like cars, guns, tvs, rosaries, churches, etc.
nonbeliever225 2 years ago
But couldn't I argue that human constructions are natural? Just like a bee hive is considered natural and a termite nest is considered natural. If other creatures' constructions are considered to be natural, then why can't ours be? The word natural is a very vague term, as it could mean absolutely anything and everything!
Abengoshis 2 years ago
There's even a specific fallacy for the term: the naturalist fallacy, which states that because something is natural does not necessarily mean it is good (or bad).
KamuiTa 2 years ago
Well natural doesn't define good or bad, it is just reality. The reality is a car is natural, and causes problems. A vaccine is natural but can have good effects. The natural has no bearing on good or bad, and it doesn't claim to.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
The word natural itself brings up more problems. I don't think that you can argue that anything is inherently natural or unnatural, it's just another way of justifying a position without evidence. It's so nonspecific: do you mean a part of nature? Naturally occurring? Part of the natural order of things? I would argue that anything that doesn't break the laws of physics and isn't unbreakable or immortal is natural in that it exists in the same reality that we do.
KamuiTa 2 years ago
Everything in reality is natural. That's what I said, concurring with your statement of anything that doesn't break the laws of physics is natural. Anything else is supernatural, which I doesn't exist.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
Actually, all 'supernatural' things are just outside the scope of science. It doesn't mean they don't exist; it just means we can't know whether they exist or not. It also makes the probablility of them existing laughable, since there's no way to tell =)
OmorosePanya 2 years ago 2
I agree completely. I can't prove they aren't there, but that's not my job. My job is to defend what I think is there. I'm glad you agree they are laughable, because that is absolutely true. lol. I appreciate the back and forth. I got my main source of wiki for the stats, although I didn't just use that as a primary. There are results in newspapers and the like covering the suicide rate in different countries individually. In this case wiki is pretty accurate. I hate wiki in most cases..
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
Awesome. I just said that because I see so many people saying lack of evidence isnt evidence of existence, while too many of these same people forget that lack of evidence isnt evidence of nonexistence. And these persons label their notions as science. Science is not about blanket assumptions, regardless of the subject. But Im glad you realize this. Its refreshing.
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
Hate to barge into your conversation, but "...a part of nature? Naturally occurring? Part of the natural order of things?" are the same thing.
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
It's just entomology, which you can argue over endlessly. They may or may not be the same thing, but regardless their all still non-phrases because things are either natural (real) or supernatural (probably not real). Anything arguing specificity of either of those ideas is silly.
KamuiTa 2 years ago
Brevity is a virtue. I didnt know whether you were aware that you said the same thing three times, despite your explanation. And, actually, natural vs. supernatural isnt an issue of real vs. not real, but provable vs. not provable. Science cant say whether supernatural phenomena exist because, by definition, they are beyond the scope of science. Accuracy is a virtue as well. It is not silly to ensure that you say what you mean, especially in a debate.
OmorosePanya 2 years ago
Fair enough.
KamuiTa 2 years ago
When our lifespan was only about 40 years, when we were in our teenage years essentially 1/3 to 1/2 of our life was over. It was necessary to procreate and be "married" by then which wouldn't you know it also coincided with out biological urge to do so. Now that our lifespan has doubled and modern convenience has extended our adolescence we now have the misfortune of not being mentally mature enough (if we ever were) to handle the hormone-crazed drive to procreate because of biology.
Humanist555 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wrote a book about relationship and marriage in a way different than how must people woud argue it. I hope some of you would evaluate my book: The Ultimate Goal of Life: Sacred Genetic Code Theory. Thank you.
UltimateGoalOfLife 2 years ago
some "christians" say that God gave us free will because HE "loves" us. Let's examine that for a second.If I LOVE my kid, am I going to give him free will to play in the street and get hit by a car? Then why would God give us free will knowing that we would end up being tortured FOREVER in His basement (Hell) for sinning? If you think that is justified, then your god's an ASS! If I were God and I knew people would end up in Hell because of free will, I wouldn't give it to them.
chrisehogan 2 years ago 3
the way I think of it is this....Is there any...ANY possible thing that your kid could do, that justifies you being allowed to tie them up, and torture them in your basement for years until they die? If your answer is no you love them, then why should god be able to do even worse that than and still claim he loves? Do we love more?
boorens18 2 years ago
Dang, forgot one....
Chance of pregnancy with homosexual fornication 0%.
nidodson 2 years ago
0.01%, probably. I remember hearing about a guy who got pregnant. Very weird.
SickOfFashion 2 years ago
He was actually a female though... well yeah... biologically he was mostly a female internally.
nidodson 2 years ago
He was a woman 1st. Was taking testosterone to switch to a man but was pre-op. Just had the facial hair and kinda body like a dude thing going on. His girlfriend was sterile and couldn't bear a child so they choose to impregnate him/her before he/she went for the operation to become a full blown man...I think.
TU7272IN 2 years ago 2
Abstinence
100% Successful
People staying Abstinent in High School
12% Successful
Chance of Pregnancy without Safe Sex
85% (I think, correct me if you know.)
Chance with Safe Sex
99.99% with condom and birth control [when used properly] (and I am still waiting for male birth control to come out.)
nidodson 2 years ago
I'm confused, are you presenting percentages for how easy it is for you to get pregnant in certain situations?
eatfirejones 2 years ago
We are just talking about if 2 people of the same gender has sex, and how it is impossible for them to have kids. Unless one is actually a different gender, and has those organs functional, they can not create a child.
nidodson 2 years ago
Dolly was an ewe (July 5, 1996 February 14, 2003), remarkable in being the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell, using the process of nuclear transfer. She was cloned by Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland.
According to Wikipedia, men are obsolete. Women now become pregnant without us.
raynelycan 2 years ago
we are talking naturally, not with science, haha
nidodson 2 years ago
Ah. I had assumed thay human biology fell under a catagory of science. Thank you for correcting me.
raynelycan 2 years ago
It does, but you dont need to be a scientists to reproduce, you need a scientists to clone someone, haha. Look at the idiots in Texas who passed laws to teach creation in schools, they somehow figured out how to reproduce. So it doesn't take much, barely a brain. Cloning on the other hand takes very intelligent people that know what they are doing for the most part.
nidodson 2 years ago
Touche.
And teaching Creation? Isn't every quiz/test answer "G-d dunnit."?
raynelycan 2 years ago
That, and that scientists like Steven Hawking is wasting his life to lie to us all, and God is changing the rules for advancements we are making in the medical industry, it isn't because evolution is true.
nidodson 2 years ago
What?
Can you repost that with the necesary corrections? I can't make head nor tails of what you said.
raynelycan 2 years ago
Pretty much, if Creation is true, Steven Hawking and many other scientists are devoting their lives to science just to lie to everyone. So God just changes the rules so we have medical advancements instead of evolution actually being true.
Mainly I am just pointing out that Steven Hawking's life is a shame according to creationist, and many other scientists, even Einstein, because they think theories are just concepts, and don't understand what a scientific theory is.
nidodson 2 years ago
Ah, my apologies, I didn't read your last comment as it related to mine.
Good point. I find it too funny for words that a small over-funded minority believes that every scientist is lying and their peers are backing them.
raynelycan 2 years ago
lolz
dellismulligan 2 years ago
abstainance-99.9% effective
"mary the mother of jesus" was abstaint.
go figure!
god bless athiesm:):):)
peace
hippiesal 2 years ago
So that's why they teach abstinence only; It grows the flock.
simplynotedible 2 years ago
I find it unsettling that you think exploring sexuality is sinful. Biologically, humans are not monogamous, so I don't see how sex is something that should be kept into the bounds of marriage. You're religious beliefs are you're beliefs and you are entitled to them however so it's cool. But I think that ignoring safe sex education is damaging and parents who are too uncomfortable talking openly and honestly about sex to their kids is too.
MuddPiez 2 years ago 2
"I find it unsettling that you think exploring sexuality is sinful. Biologically, humans are not monogamous, so I don't see how sex is something that should be kept into the bounds of marriage. You're religious beliefs are you're beliefs and you are entitled to them however so it's cool. But I think that ignoring safe sex education is damaging and parents who are too uncomfortable talking openly and honestly about sex to their kids is too."
I'm nt even going 2 entertain this....
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Which is your way of saying "I don't have a good argument to counter this so I'm going to pretend it's beneath me". Ok, fair enough. We win the argument then.
Vilhelm86 2 years ago
Win the argument but lose your soul...
=o(
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Ah, a new argument. Ok, prove to me that I have a soul. Of course I will accept only scientific evidence.
Vilhelm86 2 years ago 3
Oh noes! His hidden invisible other body cannot go to the happy park and dance with the men with wings.
Findulidas 2 years ago 2
Wow, that guy sounds REALLY English!!!
Jagasaurus 2 years ago
The Benefits of having sex before marriage.
As long as teens understand what their getting into and use the proper, safe methods; I seen no problem if they choose to explore their sexuality. We as humans are sexual beings, sex is natural and nothing to me ashamed of. Sex is a stress reliever, it adds a demension of emotion into a relationship and frankly it's fun. Obviously sex is risky though. Masturbation is the best alternative for teens IMO.
BTW I'm a teen and I am a virgin :)
MuddPiez 2 years ago
I believe sexuality is part of our being n is a gift that should b explored n experienced IN the bounds of how God designed it. Well that's if the person desires 2 experience sex to its FULLEST capacity. Anything less is 'uncivilized'....lol I mean 2 each his own, just long as we take accountability 4 the consequences of abusing the gift.
BTW I'm an adult and a single mom...so I speak fm 'personal' experience. Bless!
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
WOW. Desiring the gift of sex 2 be sacred by limiting it 2 the bounds of marriage (a love covenant btwn a man and a woman) for the stability of the family and ultimately the society, is looked upon with disgust. How ironic...
LJCampbell25 3 years ago
You have misunderstood. They are not bashing individuals who wish to to practice Abstinence. They are criticizing the religiously motivated practice of teaching Abstinence Only. That some teenagers don't want to have sex before marriage is ok and no body should force them to take sex-ed if they don't want to, but to deny those that want to have sex the knowledge on how to practice safe sex and avoid pregnancy is idiotic. And, as they remark here; does not work.
Vilhelm86 2 years ago
Pls explain y teens should be having sex outside of marriage anyway? I would like to know the 'benefits' of having sex outside of marriage?
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Please, don't let your ignorance cloud the truth about abstinence, you're twisting Vilhem86's statement. If you believe that abstinece is the best choice for teens, good for you and it should always be noted that it is an option. However it is silly to ignore safe sex methods because of that belief. 1 out of 4 teen girls have an STD, and this was under an abstinece-only education. This system is not clearly not working, mo batter how sacred sex in the bounds of marriage may or not may be.
MuddPiez 2 years ago
I KNOW that sex w/in the bonds of a loving marriage btwn a man n wmn is the BEST 4 nt only the couple but also the family n society. 'Unsafe-sex' is NOT the cause of the rise of STDs, abortions, n teenage pregnancy. PROMISCUITY, FORNICATION, n ADULTERY is the cause. Want proof 4 that claim? Hav EVERY1 wait until their married n NO1 cheat on their spouse n I can GARUNTEE all these negative side effects will subside. I agree tho that ppl should have the option 2 use protection....but bcuz of sin.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
It's not about benefits, it's about rights. If someone wishes to do it then what right do you, or anyone else, have to tell them that they can't. Of course there is a risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but if they want to risk it then that is their business. This idea of "let's not teach them about sex in the hope that they will get scared and not do it" is not working. Marriage is just a promise, there is nothing magical about it that will make sex ok.
Vilhelm86 2 years ago
I NEVER disagreed with allowing some1 their 'freewill' or 'right' 2 sin. However what I disagree with is their 'attitude' towards abstinence-only prgms. I disagree w/ their reasoning on WHY stds n unwanted pregnancy is rising. It's NOT due 2 not educating on 'safe-sex'. The credit belongs 2 SIN. Having 'safe-sex' DOESN'T mk it right. Having 'right-sex' does. Bless.
Btw ppl will more than likely ABUSE something they have VERY little understanding of (marriage n sex).
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
"Unsafe-sex' is NOT the cause of the rise of STDs, abortions, n teenage pregnancy. PROMISCUITY, FORNICATION, n ADULTERY is the cause."
... what? Promiscuity, fornification and adultry that leads to unwanted pregnancies, STD's, ect BECAUSE of unsafe sex methods. Sorry but this argument is illogical and further demonstrates that teens need to learn safe sex practices. BTW people who are not promiscuous and adulters can get STD's and get pregnant, so this argument is rather moot.
MuddPiez 2 years ago 2
Promiscuity (unwed sex w/ various partners), Fornication (unwed sex), n Adultery (spouses who have sex outside of marriage) is the reason for the rise in STDs, unwanted pregnancies. Truth CANNOT be denied.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
when you're promiscuous,adulterous or getting unwanted pregnancies you're most probably having unsafe sex.which causes the rise of STD's.whether unfaithful ro whatever,the minute you have insafe sex,you stand the risk of gettin infected and infecting others,so i'm going to agree with
MuddPiez.
sillysylviesly 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Condoms and birth control CANNOT GUARANTEE disease-free or unwanted pregnancy. TRUE 'safe sex' is to practice it the way God intended.
Bless
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
by safe sex do you mean outside marriage?cause besides family planning that's the only reason I see fit for condoms in marriage.And from what i understand god inteded for sex only in marriage.
sillysylviesly 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The ONLY 'safe' sex is within the way God intended....between a husband and wife (Gen 2:24). Anything outside of that masquerades as 'safe'.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
that's exactly what I said :P
sillysylviesly 2 years ago
Why would the all powerful creator of all the cosmos, the being who is eternal and all-knowing really give a flying fuck about where anyone's sex lives?
AmishMarine1 2 years ago
What makes you think if He didn't give a 'flying f' about ur sex life, more than likely He also wouldn't give a 'flying f' about ur very existence n u wouldn't even b here 2 ask that question. Think about it....
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Because its a little silly to imagine a being of that power caring where a person's penis goes. I also tend to notice that people who think he does tend to be intellectually immature, the same people who anthropomorphize God. Based on your spelling I see that you are one of those...
AmishMarine1 2 years ago 2
LoL Hun, I'm 2 grwn 2 get offended easily, esp by some1 who doesn't know me. Let's deal wit the issue. God DOES care how ppl use/abuse His gift (sex). He cares else He wouldn't warn us about its neg consequences (if abused). However He's granted man FREWILL. Thus making them accountable for their actions irt His gift. What's 'silly' is 2 nt heed those warnings n dive headlong into a world of trouble. Bless.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
But God is omniscient, omnipotent, and the the creator. Therefore God knew, when He created us, which of us would do what. We have free will perhaps, but God knows our choices and created us in such a way that we would make those choices. God chose who would sin.
CaiusRising 2 years ago
The ONLY 'way' God created man was GOOD and FREE. God's omniscience doesn't eradicate man's freewill and accountability. God chose who would exist. Man chose who would sin.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Right, but God knew that man would choose to sin, and despite being omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, chose to created mankind to sin.
CaiusRising 2 years ago
God chose to create mankind to choose NOT to sin. Mankind choose to sin.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Either way you look at it Hell was created as a place for those who don't agree with the concept of the judeao-christian God. It's no less severe or preposterous because he "allows" us to fuck up.
If rationalists, atheist and agnostics, started to treat you unfairly and told you that you would be put to death, but worse than that, killed over and over again and suffer for all eternity you would claim to be a martyr for your cause.
What does that make us then?
dellismulligan 2 years ago
No. Hell was prepared 4 the devil n his angels. Unfortnately those who reject God, as they did, will receive the same justice as they will. It's not 'severe/preposterous' is what we call JUSTICE. Esp given the fact that God provided a way 2 escape. Don't blame God 4 ur 'f ups' n just reward (hell). REPENT N TURN TO CHRIST N U WILL BE SAVED. Paul Washers' statement rings tru "Man would rather be their own god and go to hell, then escape hell by bowing the knee". Sad...
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Lulz, oh christians
dellismulligan 2 years ago 7
But if God didn't want us to sin, why did we sin? If He created us to choose not to sin, then we wouldn't have sinned because God is omniscient and omnipotent. Once again, if God didn't want us to sin, He wouldn't have created us in such a fashion that we would choose sin. Or else He wouldn't have created of devil. Or else He wouldn't have created sin--God had to have, ultimately, produced sin, since He made everything. The devil may have made it (or whatever you believe), but God made him.
CaiusRising 2 years ago
My friend. God choose 2 create us to have FREEWILL. However automatically with freewill comes the possibility of sin. God didn't choose us to sin, but to have freewill. WE choose to sin. To blame God for His creations FREE CHOICE is absurd. God made us, and made EVERYTHING initially GOOD. But WE introduced sin because of FREEWILL.
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
what a load of crap. fuck religion, its bullshit.... and it's bad for your mental health
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago 7
I wouldn't express it as vulgar as u but we pretty much on the same page. Bless
LJCampbell25 2 years ago
Its people like you that is the reason why we have problems in the first place. Stop talking about what God did or did not do as if this character is real. You don`t know if there is a God, so your rants about what he or she did is pointless. Focus on what is real and leave this none sense for the cartoons.
falotnek 2 years ago 5
I agree, but the problem isn't the invisible guy, its people using the idea of the invisible guy to control a large crowd and usually leading to mass ignorance and prejudice. Lets say you are playing that old classic Lemmings. If you as a player are completely fucked up, it's natural to expect your lemmings will mess up and die all the time. This is how i see religion, on a way larger scale, of course.
hellhammerz666 2 years ago
I really enjoyed that caller.
lol
dummbatz48 3 years ago
You know
... the first time I ever saw a high school that taught strictly abstinence-only lessons in heath class...
...was also the first time I ever saw a high school with a day-care attached.
True Story.
Go Arkansas.
jrparri 3 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
It's one thing to challenge youth to wait for a while on sexual activity, but scaring the hell out of them and telling them a condom is a provision for sin is irresponsible! If you want the information that your church won't tell you about premarital sex in the Bible go to the site below.
tinyurl com/9w5a9f
NotAnotherGeneration 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you followed the bibles laws then we wouldnt have these statistics..duh. America is really stupid
1mexi23 3 years ago
yes, the bible's laws are GREAT! Stoning children who misbehave, killing the entire world (except for 8 people), the wholesale gang-rape of every young woman in a conquered city.
These are things we should live by.
buddie169 3 years ago 16
I totally agree.
pdimatteo 3 years ago 3
If we followed the Bible we'd be killing "witches" and burning homosexuals, dipshit.
Greywyn7 3 years ago
Yep, lets follow the bible and murder those who get divorced or have affairs. I'm sure that would go over really well.
enigmatically 3 years ago
Inorite?
Greywyn7 3 years ago
huh?
enigmatically 3 years ago
abstinence-only "education" is going to result in MORE unwanted pregnancies and abortions instead of preventing them. A % Kids are going to have sex in their teen years regardess of what you teach them, thers no avoiding in it many cases, just look at Sarah Palin's knocked up daughter. If you leave them ignorant and unaware of consequences, they're WORSE OFF cause when they end up doing it anyway, they don't know about STDs, pregnancy, etc. and just think they have to confess on Sunday.
ruin3r 3 years ago 7
"It's the first day of the new week so I don't want to tell everyone that they were doing anal sex... OH! Did I say that?!"
Fantastic.
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago 4
That's why it's called a chastity ring. Because you let your boyfriend fuck your ringpiece. Everyone knows that.
bdf2718 3 years ago
If I was wrong, and there's a bunch of "research" that supports the claim, it should be readily available to someone for a quick rebuttal.
You guys really shouldn't be assholes...wanna know why? Because you're watching this badass show for entertainment, that's why. Just cut the crap: refute what I've said, or simply accept it. Not a one of you has actually acknowledged my criticism. You've all just attempted to deter me or deny it.
Redfingers 3 years ago
No one has acknowledged your criticism because it is invalid and you come across as a petulant and annoying. To refute the myth that more religious belief results in more successful societies, Matt cited a paper showing the opposite correlation. He gave Japan and Sweden as two examples of the more atheistic societies in the study. The important part is the trend. Do you understand what a trend is?
JBRHC78 3 years ago 6
Matt made no statements specifically claiming that Sweden had a lower suicide rate. I've listened to it twice now. But as matter of fact, it took me all of two seconds to find the paper:
"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health
with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous
Democracies"
In that paper you will find that Sweden does have a lower suicide rate than the US among 15-24 year olds (looks like 11 versus 8.5 suicides per 100,000). Will you STFU now?
JBRHC78 3 years ago 6
The divorce rate in the US is highest in the most religious states. Who woulda thunk it?
bdf2718 3 years ago 2
Yet what he says offhand without a single piece of supporting research somehow negates studies that I've accessed through a search engine?
The fuck does google have to do with what I found on the other end?
At any rate, you shouldn't be accepting everything someone says just because they're on an atheist program. I LOVE the show, I love all these guys, hell, I wish I lived in Austin and I'd come to their meetings. That has nothing to do with this. I want a legit rebuttal...should be easy.
Redfingers 3 years ago
One of my favorite joke shirts has the words "Abstinence" written above, then a portrait of the Virgin Mary in the middle and Below "Works 99.999% of the time" Cracks me up every time.
kev3d 3 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Quick comment: I'm really disgusted at the inability of the atheist community to address a legitimate comment. I expect this from Christians, but look at my previous comments. They've been downrated, as though they were profane or illegitimate. Try and READ the comments before you discredit them please. Speak with your words and not with your thumbs.
Are the Netherlands Sweden? Is that not a legitimate negation? Meanwhile his comment is rated up for its factual fuckup.
Redfingers 3 years ago
I don't seem to recall mentioning "Sweden" the "Netherlands" or anything else related to geography, politics or any similar matter. I also do not make it a habit to up or down grade comments. (because whats the point?) I can only infer that you commented on my comment by accident, to which I can only reply by quoting you; "Try and READ the comments before you discredit them please."
kev3d 3 years ago 3
I didn't comment on your comment. It wasn't a reply. I just posted another comment.
There's two options: Post a text comment, and reply. I chose "Post a text comment." I didn't refer specifically to you. Your post was completely unrelated to what we were talking about.
Redfingers 3 years ago
I think perhaps you were downrated because of the way you come across in your comments.
eradeziel 3 years ago
If euthanasia "may" be classified as suicide in the statistics?
The argument goes like this: either euthanasia is "assisted suicide" or it is HOMICIDE. Which of those equals suicide?
If assisted suicide qualifies as suicide, I'd love to know about that. Show me evidence of one instance of euthanasia being included as suicide and I'll consider your point.
Oh...and the Netherlands aren't Sweden. Go take a look at a map please. What a waste of an objection.
Redfingers 3 years ago
wot ever ur on about here its has never been the really argument for euthanasia. some times death is a better way then yrs in constant suffering... some people actually live in a hell, and others (many religious) are happy to watch(i say watch but its likely they never see someone truly live in pain with no hope)
marcarmstrong88 3 years ago
Bu bu....God said you can't.
Redfingers 3 years ago
an "everything but ring" sounds like fun. what what in the butt?
lothrazar 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Guys: a quick Google search seemed to indicate that suicide rates in Sweden were higher than the US by a fairly significant amount.
In fact, this is after a SUBSTANTIAL decline since the 70s, during which suicide rates were remotely astronomical.
Just saying, LOVE the show, but check your facts!
Unless you're right, in which case, show me the evidence plz.
By the way, on what station and time does this show air? I'd love to watch it on TV.
Redfingers 3 years ago
one outlier does not make a trend. the correlation sticks.
greycloud24 3 years ago 4
Sure, and that justifies the use of incorrect examples how?
You will notice that he mentioned the outlier.
Yo