Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 02:27:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
  Print  
Author Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God  (Read 37169 times)
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
August 03, 2015, 09:26:30 PM
 #421

Throw rock into pond.
Rock create ripples.
Rock gone, but ripples spread.

Live brain in pond of life.
Brain create mind ripples.
Brain die and is gone, but mind ripples still go on.
This is actually not a terrible analogy, however you made one important error. The "ripples" our brains create in life do not represent our mind, but our thoughts, expressed through spoken language and written word.

Those thoughts we commit to the net will live on long after we're dead. Unlike our minds, which reside wholly in our rotting and dead brains.

Live mind in pond of life.
Mind creates thought ripples.
Brain dies and mind is gone,
but thought ripples carry on
through those whose lives we have touched.

Then why can I [subject] perceive my brain [object]?  That is, if the mind is wholly inside the brain, how is it capable of wholly perceiving the brain?  Furthermore, why can it not perceive itself?
1711679236
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711679236

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711679236
Reply with quote  #2

1711679236
Report to moderator
"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2015, 10:11:10 PM
 #422

A debate about God can neither be won nor lost, therefore as far as debate goes it is shit.

Well, I disagree. All atheists are humanists, since what else could they be? I have debunked humanism, so therefore all atheists are mistaken.

That is a fallacious statement. Any time you use worlds like all, every, none, never, etc you should reexamine your statement, because it is likely incorrect. Not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.

"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link

So why don't YOU tell me what else they could be? I have already examined the topic and found all non-humanist atheists to be "fakes". They don't ever address the evidence for life after death and what it could mean.

I have backed up my claim with this quote from the anthropologist Jack David Eller; who is backing your claim?

WOWEE. An anthropologist made a statement. Proof enough for me! I don't have to prove anything. You are the one making the claim that all atheists are humanists. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. He who claims proves.
1aguar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 04, 2015, 06:59:54 AM
Last edit: August 08, 2015, 05:34:12 AM by 1aguar
 #423

"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
Link

Only Man or GOD can be the guarantor of knowledge and thought (reason).
I propose (along with Mr. Eller) that a rationalist atheist would also dismiss claims about the entire line of "spiritual" thinking, as nothing more than a metaphor run amok.
This would be a mistake because Life after death is not a metaphor--it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.
Now I am asking atheists to be rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
I have just presented evidence refuting humanism, defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought. For the humanist, a soul is a foreign and inert concept--and nothing more than a concept, literally a word without a referent.
I have proven that life exists after death, and that is where Beliathon is wrong about the mind.
I hope he will try to responsibly address the evidence, and likewise for any atheist.
Damiantroll
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 147
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 07:54:35 AM
 #424

While it's true that human beings generally are polygamous sexually(Yes, arousal to others other than your partner and the desire to have sex with others adds to this), I don't believe "sex will kill god". The end of religion based primarily on faith without conclusive evidence(99% of all religions out there) would likely occur at the spark of something absolutely, astoundingly, revolutionary such as the creation of a "human-level" artifical intelligence and/or more.

It's funny, people turning away from God in favor of an idol is exactly what the bible predicts...

Anyhow, sex is still a HUGE motivation for people to not be religious, especially Christian. Even younger people who identify as Christian and claim to love Jesus freely have sex and just ignore the part of the bible where is says to not do that.

Modern western culture seems entirely obsessed with sex, which makes it hard to save yourself for marriage.

Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
 #425

Modern western culture seems entirely obsessed with sex, which makes it hard to save yourself for marriage.
Have some science: http://jezebel.com/5923855/turns-out-getting-slutty-on-the-first-date-can-lead-to-marriage






This theist ( http://thomrainer.com/2014/04/sex-millennials-church-five-implications ) sums up the situation nicely

Quote from: ThomRainer
Most Millennials, including Christian Millennials, see nothing wrong with unmarried persons living together. Many of them will come to our churches and be surprised to hear their behavior is sinful. How churches handle this reality will determine the success of efforts to reach the generation.

While the trend toward approval of homosexual marriage is growing in society at large, the positive view is pervasive among Millennials. Churches that choose to ignore this issue have little hope of impacting culture positively.

Millennials will exit quickly from churches whose members are shrill and unloving toward those with non-biblical views on sexuality. Unfortunately, many Millennials stereotype all Bible-believing churches as filled with members who carry Westboro-like placards that scream “God hates fags.” While this is not the case in most churches, there are still some Christians who do a good job of reinforcing that stereotype.

Ironically, Millennials will not stick with churches that have no convictions.  Liberal churches with compromising views on biblical sexuality will not attract and retain Millennials. Though Millennials are indeed increasingly liberal in their views and actions on sexuality, they view churches as places that should be convictional and even counter-cultural.

The greater opportunity lies with those churches that are able to speak truth in love, and to demonstrate that love. The preceding sentence sounds a bit cliché, but it is increasingly a reality. Many of our church members are very uncomfortable engaging, for example, a homosexual in a way that demonstrates the love of Christ. But that is the world and the culture where our churches and Christians reside. We can choose to either engage or withdraw.

There are nearly 79 million Millennials. Most of them are not Christians. Indeed, we estimate in our research that only about 15 percent of those in this generation are believers in Christ. So that means that this generation is a mission field of over 67 million men and women who do not know Christ.

We can bemoan the state of culture. We can withdraw from culture. Or we can choose to love these sinners as Christ loved us sinners.
emphasis mine

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
August 04, 2015, 03:13:57 PM
Last edit: August 04, 2015, 03:24:42 PM by the joint
 #426

Modern western culture seems entirely obsessed with sex, which makes it hard to save yourself for marriage.
Have some science: http://jezebel.com/5923855/turns-out-getting-slutty-on-the-first-date-can-lead-to-marriage






This theist ( http://thomrainer.com/2014/04/sex-millennials-church-five-implications ) sums up the situation nicely

Quote from: ThomRainer
Most Millennials, including Christian Millennials, see nothing wrong with unmarried persons living together. Many of them will come to our churches and be surprised to hear their behavior is sinful. How churches handle this reality will determine the success of efforts to reach the generation.

While the trend toward approval of homosexual marriage is growing in society at large, the positive view is pervasive among Millennials. Churches that choose to ignore this issue have little hope of impacting culture positively.

Millennials will exit quickly from churches whose members are shrill and unloving toward those with non-biblical views on sexuality. Unfortunately, many Millennials stereotype all Bible-believing churches as filled with members who carry Westboro-like placards that scream “God hates fags.” While this is not the case in most churches, there are still some Christians who do a good job of reinforcing that stereotype.

Ironically, Millennials will not stick with churches that have no convictions.  Liberal churches with compromising views on biblical sexuality will not attract and retain Millennials. Though Millennials are indeed increasingly liberal in their views and actions on sexuality, they view churches as places that should be convictional and even counter-cultural.

The greater opportunity lies with those churches that are able to speak truth in love, and to demonstrate that love. The preceding sentence sounds a bit cliché, but it is increasingly a reality. Many of our church members are very uncomfortable engaging, for example, a homosexual in a way that demonstrates the love of Christ. But that is the world and the culture where our churches and Christians reside. We can choose to either engage or withdraw.

There are nearly 79 million Millennials. Most of them are not Christians. Indeed, we estimate in our research that only about 15 percent of those in this generation are believers in Christ. So that means that this generation is a mission field of over 67 million men and women who do not know Christ.

We can bemoan the state of culture. We can withdraw from culture. Or we can choose to love these sinners as Christ loved us sinners.
emphasis mine

Getting slutty on the first date can lead to marriage?  You don't say?  As if one would have thought it was impossible.  That analysis says about as much as the statement, "As it turns out, smoking crack can lead to a pretty good week 2-3 years down the road."

Uh, "science" does not turn correlation into causation, not does it 'ever' provide moral commentary.

The study and article (except the title) don't even have anything to do with marriage.  It links sexual arousal with feelings of "love," and in a way that is most ironic to your previous arguments, wherein you declare that sex isn't anything like a drug.  Your article certainly correlates that the response is similar. 

Here's an equally BS title for you: "How drugs will kill God."
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 01:37:26 PM
Last edit: August 05, 2015, 03:25:15 PM by Beliathon
 #427

Getting slutty on the first date can lead to marriage?  You don't say?  As if one would have thought it was impossible.  That analysis says [nothing]
I know a number of liberal feminists who wouldn't dream of having sex on the first date (or even the second or third) because of the message it would send.
As though sex somehow devalues you as a person. It taints the entirety of the date that came before. It makes a long-term relationship impossible. It's the puritanical false notion that lust can never become love.

So how does all of this really work?

In order to map out the location of sexual desire and love, researchers reviewed 20 studies that used fMRI technology. First, they looked at the regions of the brain that lit up when sparked by love. They then compared the findings of all the papers to see what regions were activated when someone felt aroused or amorous.  

What they discovered was a bit surprising -- love and sexual desire both activate the striatum, showing a continuum from sexual desire to love. Each feeling impacts a different area of the striatum.

"Sexual desire activates the ventral striatum, the brain’s reward system. When someone enjoys a great dessert or an orgasm, it’s the ventral striatum that flickers with life. Love sparks activity in the dorsal striatum, which is associated with drug addiction.

“You don’t make a connection that love is a drug; it acts just like drug addiction," says Pfaus. "Anyone who has had someone break up with them feels like a drug addict in withdrawal. You end up getting cravings.”

But it doesn't stop there. The researchers also saw an overlap between sexual desire and love in the insula. The brain's insular cortex (or insula) and the striatum play a role in both sexual desire and love. The insula is nestled deep within the cerebral cortex and influences emotions.
While the striatum resides in the forebrain and receives messages from the cortex. “[The insula] translates emotional feelings into meaning,” explains Pfaus. “You take the internal state and give it external meaning.”

The areas of overlap indicate that sexual desire transitions into love in many cases, and the feelings aren’t separate.

“Even love at first sight, can it happen? Of course it can happen," says Pfaus.

And when it does happen, do you want to play Scrabble with each other? No, when it happens, all you want to do is fuck. 


Study here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22353205

INTRODUCTION: One of the most difficult dilemmas in relationship science and couple therapy concerns the interaction between sexual desire and love. As two mental states of intense longing for union with others, sexual desire and love are, in fact, often difficult to disentangle from one another.

AIM: The present review aims to help understand the differences and similarities between these two mental states using a comprehensive statistical meta-analyses of all functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies on sexual desire and love.

METHODS: Systematic retrospective review of pertinent neuroimaging literature.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review of published literature on fMRI studies illustrating brain regions associated with love and sexual desire to date.

RESULTS: Sexual desire and love not only show differences but also recruit a striking common set of brain areas that mediate somatosensory integration, reward expectation, and social cognition. More precisely, a significant posterior-to-anterior insular pattern appears to track sexual desire and love progressively.

CONCLUSIONS: This specific pattern of activation suggests that love builds upon a neural circuit for emotions and pleasure, adding regions associated with reward expectancy, habit formation, and feature detection. In particular, the shared activation within the insula, with a posterior-to-anterior pattern, from desire to love, suggests that love grows out of and is a more abstract representation of the pleasant sensorimotor experiences that characterize desire. From these results, one may consider desire and love on a spectrum that evolves from integrative representations of affective visceral sensations to an ultimate representation of feelings incorporating mechanisms of reward expectancy and habit learning.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
August 05, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
Last edit: August 05, 2015, 06:01:17 PM by the joint
 #428

Getting slutty on the first date can lead to marriage?  You don't say?  As if one would have thought it was impossible.  That analysis says [nothing]
I know a number of liberal feminists who wouldn't dream of having sex on the first date (or even the second or third) because of the message it would send.
As though sex somehow devalues you as a person. It taints the entirety of the date that came before. It makes a long-term relationship impossible. It's the puritanical false notion that lust can never become love.

So how does all of this really work?

In order to map out the location of sexual desire and love, researchers reviewed 20 studies that used fMRI technology. First, they looked at the regions of the brain that lit up when sparked by love. They then compared the findings of all the papers to see what regions were activated when someone felt aroused or amorous.  

What they discovered was a bit surprising -- love and sexual desire both activate the striatum, showing a continuum from sexual desire to love. Each feeling impacts a different area of the striatum.

"Sexual desire activates the ventral striatum, the brain’s reward system. When someone enjoys a great dessert or an orgasm, it’s the ventral striatum that flickers with life. Love sparks activity in the dorsal striatum, which is associated with drug addiction.

“You don’t make a connection that love is a drug; it acts just like drug addiction," says Pfaus. "Anyone who has had someone break up with them feels like a drug addict in withdrawal. You end up getting cravings.”

But it doesn't stop there. The researchers also saw an overlap between sexual desire and love in the insula. The brain's insular cortex (or insula) and the striatum play a role in both sexual desire and love. The insula is nestled deep within the cerebral cortex and influences emotions.
While the striatum resides in the forebrain and receives messages from the cortex. “[The insula] translates emotional feelings into meaning,” explains Pfaus. “You take the internal state and give it external meaning.”

The areas of overlap indicate that sexual desire transitions into love in many cases, and the feelings aren’t separate.

“Even love at first sight, can it happen? Of course it can happen," says Pfaus.

And when it does happen, do you want to play Scrabble with each other? No, when it happens, all you want to do is fuck.  


Study here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22353205

INTRODUCTION: One of the most difficult dilemmas in relationship science and couple therapy concerns the interaction between sexual desire and love. As two mental states of intense longing for union with others, sexual desire and love are, in fact, often difficult to disentangle from one another.

AIM: The present review aims to help understand the differences and similarities between these two mental states using a comprehensive statistical meta-analyses of all functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies on sexual desire and love.

METHODS: Systematic retrospective review of pertinent neuroimaging literature.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review of published literature on fMRI studies illustrating brain regions associated with love and sexual desire to date.

RESULTS: Sexual desire and love not only show differences but also recruit a striking common set of brain areas that mediate somatosensory integration, reward expectation, and social cognition. More precisely, a significant posterior-to-anterior insular pattern appears to track sexual desire and love progressively.

CONCLUSIONS: This specific pattern of activation suggests that love builds upon a neural circuit for emotions and pleasure, adding regions associated with reward expectancy, habit formation, and feature detection. In particular, the shared activation within the insula, with a posterior-to-anterior pattern, from desire to love, suggests that love grows out of and is a more abstract representation of the pleasant sensorimotor experiences that characterize desire. From these results, one may consider desire and love on a spectrum that evolves from integrative representations of affective visceral sensations to an ultimate representation of feelings incorporating mechanisms of reward expectancy and habit learning.

Two things:

1) So, I see you've now conceded to my original point that people biochemically and psychologically react similarly to both sexual arousal and drug use.  

2) You still haven't provided anything close to a solid argument for your contention that people are meant to have a multitude of sex partners as opposed to getting married, or that's it's more advantageous, or anything similar.

Edit: I have a third, more important point, which I'll present as a question:  When you see your loving mother, is "fucking" all you can think about, too?
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2015, 11:26:06 PM
 #429


 When you see your loving mother, is "fucking" all you can think about, too?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
August 06, 2015, 12:04:59 AM
Last edit: August 06, 2015, 12:31:11 AM by the joint
 #430


 When you see your loving mother, is "fucking" all you can think about, too?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It does sound absurd -- which is why I chose it to catch your attention -- but it isn't.  Rather, it highlights an absurdity in your own argument.  Just because you can link to a logical fallacy doesn't mean it is one.

Explanation:  From what I understand, here are your points of argument:  Pleasure is good, and the more pleasure people have, the better.  Sex is extremely pleasurable (and has some other healthy benefits), so it's good for people.  Marriages are more frequently ending in divorce, and because pleasure derived from feelings of love can be psychologically and biochemically related to pleasure derived from sex, we might as well just skip the whole marriage thing, skip the potential consequences of a failed marriage (e.g. "cravings"), and just fuck as many people as we can to enjoy ourselves and each other.  Sound about right?

Presumably, the feelings of love described in the study are those of self report.  That is, someone says, "Hey, I'm having feelings of love right now," and an MRI shows a biochemical pleasure response mapped similarly to that associated with sexual arousal.

By asking you the question I did, I'm highlighting an important consideration that either you neglected, or that wasn't accounted for in your study.

Let's say you love your mother (I hope you do!) and you say, "Okay, I'm having feelings of love for my mother."  Then, we perform an MRI.  Let's suppose two possible outcomes: 1) The MRI reveals a similar biochemical activation, or 2) The MRI reveals an entirely different biochemical activation.

If #1 is the result, then you might want to consider ditching your mom and getting a whole bunch of moms.  After all, you wouldn't want to be plagued by the possibility that your mom tragically dies or something and you get motherly love cravings (non-sexual or sexual, it doesn't matter since the biochemical response is similar).  You might also get that much more pleasure out of having a few moms per week.   But, I hope you would think this solution is ridiculous -- you love your mom because, well...she's your mom, and there's a ton of value to be gained through continuing that relationship...monogamously.

If #2 is the result, then now you have a design flaw in that we have identified a separate kind of love not accounted for in the study.  First of all, it doesn't really do much good to have two mutually exclusive definitions of the same word; that creates a lot of confusion which will have trickle down effects in both social and scientific contexts, likely resulting in blurry interpretations.  So, perhaps instead you make a distinction between "maternal love" (or brotherly, sisterly, paternal, etc.) and "sexual love."  If this is the case, then a correlation between "sexual love" and "sexual arousal" isn't really telling us much of anything except the obvious.
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2015, 12:52:49 AM
Last edit: August 06, 2015, 02:12:43 AM by Beliathon
 #431




Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2015, 02:03:55 AM
 #432

It's coming.


Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
jeffthebaker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1034


View Profile
August 06, 2015, 02:08:19 AM
 #433

Oh my God... this thread is hilarious. Expert trolling OP, keep up the good work. As silly as most of these threads are, the reactions by people trying to legitimately argue this claim is too good. Priceless.
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2015, 12:42:06 PM
Last edit: August 06, 2015, 01:08:51 PM by Beliathon
 #434

Oh my God... this thread is hilarious. Expert trolling OP, keep up the good work.


I simply call it like I see it, and it just so happens that I see the world very, very accurately. I won't claim I'm not having fun here, though.

Reality check: The truth is so far from where you imagined it was, that when I plainly lay it out for you, it feels like you're being trolled.

It's like the moment you jump into a pool - the water feels shockingly cold, but only because you haven't had time to adapt your biological thermometer yet. Relax, you're not going to freeze to death, and in a few moments the water will feel just right.


Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
1aguar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 06, 2015, 09:15:43 PM
 #435

I simply call it like I see it, and it just so happens that I see the world very, very accurately. I won't claim I'm not having fun here, though.

How can you claim that your "view" is accurate when you refuse to reply to those who point out your errors?

You won't even defend your "view". How can it be correct?
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2015, 09:38:13 PM
 #436

No one thinks you are trolling Liathon. We all know you are just a deluded uneducated utopian Marxist useful idiot pushing agendas you have very little true understanding of. You like the sound of all these ideas, you just have no clue how it could be successfully implemented, and you confuse social sciences with real science giving you the delusion that science is on your side. Funny how you can never provide this "science" for our peer review though, even though you do love repeatedly making the claim your ideology is backed by science.
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 07, 2015, 01:07:17 AM
 #437

Funny how you can never provide this "science" for our peer review though, even though you do love repeatedly making the claim your ideology is backed by science.
Pics are now links to the books! First four books are available at no cost! Rejoice and learn, free minds of the world:

Note: You'll need a torrent app for some of them, I recommend qBittorrent. Avoid uTorrent.









----Sorry, final two books are paywalled for now!----




Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
August 07, 2015, 01:21:14 AM
 #438

books

For the hundredth time, just because it is in a book doesn't make it science. Furthermore you insist on using a large list of books which you claim are sources, which provides a convenient way to not have to defend specific ideological stances of yours as well as being a waste of everyone's time. Throwing a list of books at people is not a source.

I suggest you find an actual peer reviewed study and stand behind it instead of playing these cowardly intellectually dishonest games. If you don't understand your ideology well enough to defend it in your own words with actual scientific sources, then you probably don't have any ground to stand on. Let me know when you figure out how actual science works.
Beliathon (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
August 07, 2015, 02:20:34 AM
 #439

For the hundredth time, just because it is in a book doesn't make it science.
I recommend the works cited section at the end of Sex At Dawn.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
August 07, 2015, 02:36:14 AM
 #440

For the hundredth time, just because it is in a book doesn't make it science.
I recommend the works cited section at the end of Sex At Dawn.

Pick ONE SOURCE STUDY, and provide the premise which you believe it supports. Anything else is just bullshit.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!