The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God

[TECSHARE]

Too bad after your wanton destruction of social structures in #1 and #2, #3 is impossible, because science has already proven gender is not just a social construct.

Actually, modern Science has understood gender to be a social construct since sexologist John Money's pioneering work on sex and gender distinction in 1955.

Of course, with all the racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and homophobia on this forum, it's clear half the fuckwits on this forum are operating as if we're still in the late 40's.

So what your saying is your single source from 60 years ago is more accurate than all of the modern studies I sourced, and you are just going to pretend they don't exist?  BTW, where does one get a degree in sexology? Also you never answered my question. What gives you the right to be intolerant and destroy the gender norms of the vast majority of the population while hiding behind a veil of tolerance?

[1713574336]

1713574336

[1713574336]

1713574336

[1713574336]

1713574336

[1713574336]

1713574336

[1713574336]

1713574336

[1713574336]

1713574336

[Beliathon]

Too bad after your wanton destruction of social structures in #1 and #2, #3 is impossible, because science has already proven gender is not just a social construct.

Actually, modern Science has understood gender to be a social construct since sexologist John Money's pioneering work on sex and gender distinction in 1955.

Of course, with all the racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and homophobia on this forum, it's clear half the fuckwits on this forum are operating as if we're still in the late 40's.

So what your saying is your single source from 60 years ago is more accurate than all of the modern studies I sourced

My sources begin with the books in the OP of this thread. I didn't put them there so you could enjoy the pretty pictures.

Read at least two or three of those books, at the very least read Sex at Dawn (also consider checking out some of this book's many excellent cited sources), and then return here when you're worthy of debate.

[TECSHARE]

Too bad after your wanton destruction of social structures in #1 and #2, #3 is impossible, because science has already proven gender is not just a social construct.

Actually, modern Science has understood gender to be a social construct since sexologist John Money's pioneering work on sex and gender distinction in 1955.

Of course, with all the racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and homophobia on this forum, it's clear half the fuckwits on this forum are operating as if we're still in the late 40's.

So what your saying is your single source from 60 years ago is more accurate than all of the modern studies I sourced

My sources begin with the books in the OP of this thread. I didn't put them there so you could enjoy the pretty pictures.

Read at least two or three of those books and then return here when you're worthy of debate.

Again, you completely ignored my question and pretended as if my sources don't exist, therefore they need not be addressed of course.

As far as your books, books aren't scientific studies. Any idiot can string together a bunch of concepts and just pretend as if they are fact, or simply use persuasive language with no scientific backing whatsoever. I also noticed not one of the authors are Doctors or have a masters degree. I am curious what scientific authority they have to make such claims.
 
CITE STUDIES SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT.

If you are incapable of condensing your ideas into simple descriptions with links to sources of science based studies, either you don't have any knowledge of the information you claim expertise on, or the studies don't exist.
Just because it is in a book does not give it scientific value. Return here when you are capable of debating.

Again...

What gives you the right to be intolerant and destroy the gender norms of the vast majority of the population while hiding behind a veil of tolerance?

[Snail2]

Too bad after your wanton destruction of social structures in #1 and #2, #3 is impossible, because science has already proven gender is not just a social construct.

Actually, modern Science has understood gender to be a social construct since sexologist John Money's pioneering work on sex and gender distinction in 1955.

Of course, with all the racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and homophobia on this forum, it's clear half the fuckwits on this forum are operating as if we're still in the late 40's.

"Modern science" should take a look at that thing between their legs. That's flesh and blood reality. Of course you can modify the configuration, but that's still a physical alteration. I guess someone here is mixing gender with gender roles...

[Beliathon]

Too bad after your wanton destruction of social structures in #1 and #2, #3 is impossible, because science has already proven gender is not just a social construct.

Actually, modern Science has understood gender to be a social construct since sexologist John Money's pioneering work on sex and gender distinction in 1955.

Of course, with all the racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and homophobia on this forum, it's clear half the fuckwits on this forum are operating as if we're still in the late 40's.

"Modern science" should take a look at that thing between their legs. That's flesh and blood reality. Of course you can modify the configuration, but that's still a physical alteration. I guess someone here is mixing gender with gender roles...

Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics, while gender refers to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society.

Sex refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine.

The differences in the sexes do not vary throughout the world, but differences in gender do.

Here are some examples of characteristics related to sex:
-Females have a vagina, men don't
-Males have a penis, women don't
-Male newborns tend to weigh more than female newborns
-Females can breastfeed their babies, males can't
-Males have deeper voices than females
-Females can get pregnant, males can't
-Males have testicles and females have ovaries

Here are some examples of characteristics related to gender:
-Women tend to do more of the housework than their spouses do
-A higher percentage of US doctors are women, compared to Egypt
-Nursing is often seen as a woman's job, although many men enter the profession
-In some countries women have to cover their heads when they go outside the house
-120 years ago women were not allowed to vote in elections

Another way of putting it is:
-Sex refers to a natural or biological feature.
-Gender refers to cultural or learned significance of sex.

[practicaldreamer]

I reckon most blokes would prefer the idea of banging their neighbours wife, than their neighbour banging his wife.
There are exceptions of course, I'm just speaking generally.

I share your disdain of institutionalised religion Beliathon. But that aside, with regards the individuals religious experience, I am more than tolerant of it so long as it isn't rammed down my throat. (FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience opened my eyes in this regard)

I reckon thats the mistake the Bolsheviks made TBH - tried to erase it from the face of the Earth - counter productive in my view. Tolerate it - as the Chinese tolerate/turn a blind eye to Buddhism/Confucianism etc

[pureelite]

Phase 1. Destroy heteronormative standards and establish equality for all sexuality. (Struggle nearing completion in most industrialized nations [sorry Russians])

Phase 2. Destroy the myth of Homo Sapien monogamy and assert science in the realm of human sexuality. Pansexuality / polyamory explodes. (Struggle ongoing in most industrialized nations)

Phase 3. Smash the myth [social construct] of gender and assert science in that realm. (Struggle just began in industrialized nations)

Phase 4. Medical science cures all sexually transmitted infections/diseases. Orgies ensue all over the world.

Phase 5. Religion is a bad memory and sad joke from a time before the Commonplace Orgasm and sexual Paradise on Earth. (Civilization's ongoing transformation from superstition to reason)

Related reading:

A large number of people likes sex . Disclaims all prayer and God for sex. Great pleasure , everyone will choose before sex than God.

[Wilikon]

Number of followers (in millions)

Christianity   2,200   
Islam   1,800   
Hinduism   1,100   
Chinese traditional religion   754 — 1,000
Buddhism   488

Etc... Etc...


I see only one way people like the OP can eliminate religions on the planet for good.


Question for the OP: What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

If the OP does not see my posts can someone else ask the question?

TIA

[Beliathon]

I see only one way people like the OP can eliminate religions on the planet for good.

We need only wait for time to do its work. The death of all superstition is an inevitability in the information age.

Where exactly do you think these trends lead?

[bryant.coleman]

Number of followers (in millions)

Christianity   2,200   
Islam   1,800   
Hinduism   1,100   
Chinese traditional religion   754 — 1,000
Buddhism   488

Just keep it simple.

Here are the demographics:

Christianity and Islam: 3,800 million (53% of the world population)
Other religions: 2,267 million (31.6% of the world population)
Atheist / Non-religious: 1,100 million (15% of the world population)

And here is the future projection for 2050, from the Pew Research Center:

Christianity and Islam: 5,680 million (61% of the world population)
Other religions: 2,386 million (26% of the world population)
Atheist / Non-religious: 1,230 million (13% of the world population)

OP can post whatever he want, but the religious population is going to increase its proportion over the years.

[Beliathon]

OP can post whatever he want, but the religious population is going to increase its proportion over the years.

From Pew's The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050

The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world. (perhaps Allah is trying to tell you something?)

Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.

In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.

India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.

In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.

Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Wilikon]

I see only one way people like the OP can eliminate religions on the planet for good.

We need only wait for time to do its work. The death of all superstition is an inevitability in the information age.

Where exactly do you think these trends lead?

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

It is a simple question you can find in the books you are promoting I am sure....

[Beliathon]

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

If you read any of the books I linked, you'd know that none of them are speculating on future legality, all of them are discussing scientific evidence of how and why we mate, and/or the ethical considerations therein.

[bryant.coleman]

From Pew's The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050

The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world. (perhaps Allah is trying to tell you something?)

Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.

In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.

India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.
In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.

Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.

This means that your dream about the global orgy is never going to happen, and the society will grow more religious and conservative rather than becoming more liberal and non-religious as per your expectations. And regarding your point that 40% of the Christians will be living in sub-Saharan Africa -  by 2050, one-fourth of the world population will be in the sub-Saharan African region. So it is not surprising.

[Wilikon]

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

If you read any of the books I linked, you'd know that none of them are speculating on future legality, all of them are discussing scientific evidence of how and why we mate.

I personally, without ANY help from ANY books, believe adults should NEVER involve children in a (hypothetical) global sexual orgy because children are defined by nature and not by future legality

That's easy for me to say it because I believe it. Why is it so hard for you to say the same instead of "scientific evidence" this or "future legality" that?

[Beliathon]

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

If you read any of the books I linked, you'd know that none of them are speculating on future legality, all of them are discussing scientific evidence of how and why we mate.

I personally, without ANY help from ANY books, believe adults should NEVER involve children in a (hypothetical) global sexual orgy because children are defined by nature and not by future legality

As a scientist it seems abundantly clear that nature's only definition is the transformation of puberty, which usually happens between ages 11-14.

That's easy for me to say it because I believe it.

It's easy for you to say because you haven't actually defined the word child. Please enlighten us, when does a child become an adult? Perhaps you have a better definition than nature has provided us after five hundred thousand years of evolution (trial and error)?

This one is very generous for religion in the coming century. Note the Internet blew up in the 90s, and the subtle shift in the graph around that time.

[BADecker]

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

If you read any of the books I linked, you'd know that none of them are speculating on future legality, all of them are discussing scientific evidence of how and why we mate.

I personally, without ANY help from ANY books, believe adults should NEVER involve children in a (hypothetical) global sexual orgy because children are defined by nature and not by future legality

As a scientist it seems abundantly clear that nature's only definition is the transformation of puberty, which usually happens between ages 11-14.

That's easy for me to say it because I believe it.

It's easy for you to say because you haven't actually defined the word child. Please enlighten us, when does a child become an adult? Perhaps you have a better definition than nature has provided us after five hundred thousand years of evolution (trial and error)?

A child becomes an adult when the circumstances of life require him to take on the thinking of an adult, or die. This often happens when a child is abandoned by his parents, or when he becomes like a war orphan. The kids that are in such circumstance and survive, often become the wisest of adults.

[Wilikon]

What would be the minimum age required to be accepted as a sexual partner in this N.G.O (new global orgy)?

If you read any of the books I linked, you'd know that none of them are speculating on future legality, all of them are discussing scientific evidence of how and why we mate.

I personally, without ANY help from ANY books, believe adults should NEVER involve children in a (hypothetical) global sexual orgy because children are defined by nature and not by future legality

As a scientist it seems abundantly clear that nature's only definition is the transformation of puberty, which usually happens between ages 11-14.

That's easy for me to say it because I believe it.

It's easy for you to say because you haven't actually defined the word child. Please enlighten us, when does a child become an adult? Perhaps you have a better definition than nature has provided us after five hundred thousand years of evolution (trial and error)?

A child becomes an adult when the circumstances of life require him to take on the thinking of an adult, or die. This often happens when a child is abandoned by his parents, or when he becomes like a war orphan. The kids that are in such circumstance and survive, often become the wisest of adults.

Does that mean a child becomes sexually mature when the parents die, automatically? Of course not. My question is not about social responsibilities but a vision of a world without any form of sexual limitations.

Child labor laws were defined because a child was able to work better in coal mines or difficult places for grown adult to reach. It was a bad law for many parents as the child was bringing food back home. That stopped. Who believes that was a bad law today?


There is not much to add when someone is asking you to define the word "child", or that "only real scientists" can.

***RED FLAG***

[BLKBITZ]

And what it's gonna be after the end of religion? End of civilization? What is the workld and society you proposing? It doesn't make any sense.

A whole lot less violent, that's what it'll be. More orgasms = less violence, I guarantee it.

Soviet Union refused religion and fell afterwards.

Weak analogy informal fallacy.

People that refused religion have killed more people than all religions have so I think your the one with the fallacy dumbass.

The fallacy, my dear sir, is the basic idea of comparing murders based on religion, against those committed devoid of such a basis.  

You're presuming atheist atrocities "out-perform" atrocities based on religion, when the simple fact is an atrocity needs neither basis - instead, only that of the twisted (or 'anti-social', if such fallacious logic still rules this discussion) individual's (and those he/she have brainwashed) personal beliefs to cause such suffering.

Religion, sex, death, genocide, etc. etc. etc. - ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL.  No one has any right whatsoever placing blame on a reason that can be used universally.


Investing some time in reading the book, 'A Brief History of the Paradox', may serve many here as good reference material when dealing with similarly pointless banter.

People that believe in a peaceful religion tend to not do shit that isn't peaceful while people that have no moral backing don't have any real restrictions besides personal which is very subjective.

[BADecker]

And what it's gonna be after the end of religion? End of civilization? What is the workld and society you proposing? It doesn't make any sense.

A whole lot less violent, that's what it'll be. More orgasms = less violence, I guarantee it.

Soviet Union refused religion and fell afterwards.

Weak analogy informal fallacy.

People that refused religion have killed more people than all religions have so I think your the one with the fallacy dumbass.

The fallacy, my dear sir, is the basic idea of comparing murders based on religion, against those committed devoid of such a basis.  

You're presuming atheist atrocities "out-perform" atrocities based on religion, when the simple fact is an atrocity needs neither basis - instead, only that of the twisted (or 'anti-social', if such fallacious logic still rules this discussion) individual's (and those he/she have brainwashed) personal beliefs to cause such suffering.

Religion, sex, death, genocide, etc. etc. etc. - ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL.  No one has any right whatsoever placing blame on a reason that can be used universally.


Investing some time in reading the book, 'A Brief History of the Paradox', may serve many here as good reference material when dealing with similarly pointless banter.

People that believe in a peaceful religion tend to not do shit that isn't peaceful while people that have no moral backing don't have any real restrictions besides personal which is very subjective.

The difference is Islam, of course. Why? Because Islam has violence directives right along with peace directives right in its holy writings.