The Future of Secularism

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Iirc contraceptionis prevention from fertilization, not like abortion.

Bestiality is no where near non-procreative sex. Does the Bible speak against non-procreative sex?

Yes.

Where?

[Andsed]

And why exactly should we care about what the bible says?

He asked.

fair enough.

[Major-Tom]

In the developed world, at least, we've been seeing a trend of people eschewing religion more and more. I'd also argue that many of these people aren't avowed, "in your face atheists," they just don't particularly care for religion and it's associated cultural practices. In many countries outside the developed world, I don't see secularism growing particularly rapidly in the foreseeable future.

[Diopolis]

Yes.

Where?

The story of Onan refers to a man struck dead for refusing to procreate.

[Andsed]

Where?

The story of Onan refers to a man struck dead for refusing to procreate.

Thats pretty fucked up. I mean holy shit god killed a dude for not having kids?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Where?

The story of Onan refers to a man struck dead for refusing to procreate.

How does that relate to procreating? Sounds more like celibacy or not wanting to have sex at the time.

[Diopolis]

The story of Onan refers to a man struck dead for refusing to procreate.

How does that relate to procreating? Sounds more like celibacy or not wanting to have sex at the time.

Well he had sex. He just took measures to ensure he wouldn't beget a son.

[The New California Republic]

The story of Onan refers to a man struck dead for refusing to procreate.

How does that relate to procreating? Sounds more like celibacy or not wanting to have sex at the time.

Onan was fucking his sister-in-law, but didn't finish in a manner that would lead to fertilization.

And Diopolis, you gonna respond to my earlier post?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

How does that relate to procreating? Sounds more like celibacy or not wanting to have sex at the time.

Well he had sex. He just took measures to ensure he wouldn't beget a son.

Oh ok.

[Andsed]

How does that relate to procreating? Sounds more like celibacy or not wanting to have sex at the time.

Well he had sex. He just took measures to ensure he wouldn't beget a son.

And that justifies killing him how?

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Up To The Last Drop Of Our Blood We Support Secularism

[Hanafuridake]

While there are serious problems with liberal secularism, it's preferable over returning to the time period where monasteries fielded their own private armies and would march on Kyoto whenever their demands for more land were not met. Religion is fundamentally a matter of faith, if it can't be proven, then it should not be the business of the state to make it the policy of government.

[Trumptonium1]

Religion will always exist, it will just change from Gods to cults of personality. Human nature to deify in the name of hope.

[Diopolis]

Contraception murders babies even before their birth.

What? How is a condom stopping sperm "murdering babies"? There is so much that is wrong with your statement. First, fertilization has not taken place. Second, it isn't murder if there is no person. Third, related to the first two, there is no baby. Your entire statement is just such a clusterfuck of falsehoods that you may as well have said absolutely nothing.

going against the natural telos of sex to create a crude pantomime of bestiality in the most intimate union of the human species.

What the actual fuck? What fucking crooked backwater path did you need to take to get from "sex with a condom" to "bestiality" of all things?

There is no fundamental difference between the two. They are evil perversions of sex to obtain the pleasures of it without seeking its purpose, which is to make babies.

[Korhal IVV]

* I was born and raised in an atheistic family in the USSR, where atheism was a state ideology, and through the entire education system, both at school and at universities, the following ideas were carried out:

- Religion reflects the world falsely, because instead of studying the facts, it requires blind faith in the myths and words of church authorities.
- At the same time, religious dogmatism is aggressive, scientists in the Middle Ages were forced to repeat dogmas, and artists to create according to religious canons, this hindered the development of astronomy, medicine, and art. For the imposition of dogmas practiced violence: the Inquisition, the cooperation of the church with the secular police to punish apostasy from religion.
- Religion serves rulers and exploiters against egalitarian and liberating revolutionary movements, preaches humility, and instead of improving the earthly world through technological progress and social revolution, it promises an illusory paradise in heaven, thereby undermining progress.
- Religion divides people into hostile denominations, each of which claims to be the absolute truth and considers the rest to be heretics, hence the constant religious wars and enmity.
- At the same time in the USSR freedom of conscience, you can attend the church, but this is the lot of old men from backward villages.

Until 1991, there was no alternative to this view, and many thought that such propaganda was one-sided and false. After 1991, the rulers relied more and more on religion, and as it did, it became clear to many people that Soviet anticlerical propaganda was true.

So, in the USSR, we were taught that religion has social roots: the impotence of a person against the disasters of nature and society. As long as these evils exist, there will be religion, it cannot be eradicated by prohibitions. Therefore, the future of secularism depends on whether people will be able to create an abundant, free, happy society, where there will be less need for religion. If it succeeds, secularism will win and religion will retreat. If this fails, religion will win and regress will occur in the Middle Ages.

P.S. Sorry for possible translation errors via google translate.

The Soviets forget that some of the greatest scientific minds were Christian. See: Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, etc.

Plus, Christians were at the forefront of crusading against evil: Ex., William Wilberforce against slavery, Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement, and many more.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

So the choice is around religious totalitarian "MAKE+RAISE 8 BABIES YA MADAFAKA" intrusive Orwellian theocracy, a world where we are free to choose, or Soviet Laïcité. I think I've already guessed which approach brings the best to the world.

[Andsed]

What? How is a condom stopping sperm "murdering babies"? There is so much that is wrong with your statement. First, fertilization has not taken place. Second, it isn't murder if there is no person. Third, related to the first two, there is no baby. Your entire statement is just such a clusterfuck of falsehoods that you may as well have said absolutely nothing.


What the actual fuck? What fucking crooked backwater path did you need to take to get from "sex with a condom" to "bestiality" of all things?

There is no fundamental difference between the two. They are evil perversions of sex to obtain the pleasures of it without seeking its purpose, which is to make babies.

So safe sex is now a bad thing?

[The New California Republic]

going against the natural telos of sex to create a crude pantomime of bestiality in the most intimate union of the human species.

What the actual fuck? What fucking crooked backwater path did you need to take to get from "sex with a condom" to "bestiality" of all things?

There is no fundamental difference between the two.

There is no fundamental difference between fucking with a condom and fucking animals? That is some seriously fucked up logic that you are using right there. It is downright disturbing and wrong. Honestly man, I'm actually concerned that you have made that strange connection.

[Andsed]

going against the natural telos of sex to create a crude pantomime of bestiality in the most intimate union of the human species.

There is no fundamental difference between the two.

There is no fundamental difference between fucking with a condom and fucking animals? That is some seriously fucked up logic that you are using right there. It is downright disturbing and wrong. Honestly man, I'm actually concerned that you have made that strange connection.

It does astound me that some people will act like using protection during sex is bad because apparently sex is only for making babies now.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

[Bear Stearns]

Exhibit A

(Image)

Exhibit B

(Image)

We're fucked.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Exhibit A

(Image)

Exhibit B

(Image)

We're fucked.

No I mean we should make Sub-saharan Africa prosper for our own good, but as a colleague from Dubai once told, if you want economic prosperity (that aren't based on natural resources) you gonna have to implement secular reforms and increase civil freedom or some sort. Including sex ed+contraceptives and all that good stuff.

[Aglanen]

There is no fundamental difference between the two. They are evil perversions of sex to obtain the pleasures of it without seeking its purpose, which is to make babies.

Look, if you want to have no sex until marriage and all that jazz, fine. Freedom of expression works both ways, you have the right to run your own life as "morally" as you wish. Just don't kid yourself into thinking that you can force your life choices onto others. Including LGBT, non-Christians, liberal Christians, women, or just anyone who's not a bible-thumping prig.

[Korhal IVV]

So the choice is around religious totalitarian "MAKE+RAISE 8 BABIES YA MADAFAKA" intrusive Orwellian theocracy, a world where we are free to choose, or Soviet Laïcité. I think I've already guessed which approach brings the best to the world.

I think it should be “A world where we are free to choose but stupidity and politicsl correctedness isn’t glorified”

[Aglanen]

The Soviets forget that some of the greatest scientific minds were Christian. See: Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, etc.

Plus, Christians were at the forefront of crusading against evil: Ex., William Wilberforce against slavery, Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement, and many more.

Newton also believed that any hypothesis which can't be tested with the scientific method has no place in debate. So whether this makes Newton a hypocrite or just not actually as pious as some would like to believe, Newtonian Thought would still lay down the flaming laser sword on any theistic argument.