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

[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.

Related reading:

I do not believe that sex will kill God, sex is normal and every man in the world is in need of cutting process, that does not intersect there would be no people. I only condemn prostitutes who sell their body, if ses of love that is quite normal, and God allows it.

[Beliathon]

I only condemn prostitutes who sell their body, if ses of love that is quite normal, and God allows it.

I bet you do, you privileged misogynistic ignoramus.

[TECSHARE]

Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

Related Note: He lost his penis because of a botched male genital mutilation.

What, you have no comment about the pioneer of your gender theories raising a boy as a girl and his resulting suicide as an adult, along with his twin brother oding on antidepressants?

Since you have no comment about the above horror story of imposed gender bending, perhaps you have a comment about the opinions of this feminist lesbian who says feminism is ignoring the effect of biology in gender roles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPoz43pbMmo

[Beliathon]

@TECSHARE

I'm happy you're bumping my thread, even if it's with your random off-topic nonsense. You're linking me to other people debating, why not just have the debate here?

[TECSHARE]

@TECSHARE

I'm happy you're bumping my thread, even if it's with your random off-topic nonsense. You're linking me to other people debating, why not just have the debate here?

Considering you refuse to reply to my very on topic statements, and instead just choose to go after easy targets to try to make it look like you have a clue, I am not sure how I can debate myself.

[Beliathon]

Considering you refuse to reply to my very on topic statements, and instead just choose to go after easy targets to try to make it look like you have a clue, I am not sure how I can debate myself.

Stop acting like a butthurt child, I'm not your mother. When you write something worth responding to, I'll respond. This shitposting doesn't cut it:

Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

Related Note: He lost his penis because of a botched male genital mutilation.

[BADecker]

The word "gender" in the minds of EVERYONE who is not some kind of dictionary-nerd, linguist, has its whole meaning wrapped up in "sex." Say the word, "Gender," to the average person on the street and he thinks "sex." If he happens to be a protester of some kind, he might have glimpses in his mind of some deeper meaning. But most of the time his thinking will start out with "sex" before it goes on to something else.

[Beliathon]

The word "gender" in the minds of EVERYONE who is not some kind of dictionary-nerd, linguist, has its whole meaning wrapped up in "sex." Say the word, "Gender," to the average person on the street and he thinks "sex."

And if you ask Americans whether angels really exist, 3 out of 4 of them will tell you they do. I suppose you think this is how science is done?



So sorry, science is not a popularity contest.

[BADecker]

The word "gender" in the minds of EVERYONE who is not some kind of dictionary-nerd, linguist, has its whole meaning wrapped up in "sex." Say the word, "Gender," to the average person on the street and he thinks "sex."

And if you ask Americans whether angels really exist, 3 out of 4 of them will tell you they do. I suppose you think this is how science is done?



So sorry, science is not a fucking popularity contest.

Science simply isn't (for the most part) out there trying to prove the existence of angels. Thus, science doesn't (for the most part) even talk about the existence of angels. Rather, science talks about a host of other things that are just as fictional as scientists think angels are... things like Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, the idea that stars are nuclear when electric arc law fits star activity better, etc., etc.  Why are these things fictional? Because they are only ideas and theories. They have no real proof behind them.

[Beliathon]

Science simply isn't (for the most part) out there trying to prove the existence of angels.

Science isn't out there trying to prove anything, that's the difference between faith and science. Science is out there trying to disprove everything that can be disproven. It's called skepticism.

You should try it some time.

things like Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, the idea that stars are nuclear when electric arc law fits star activity better

Stars are nuclear fusion. That is accepted as scientific fact not because a bunch of scientists choose to believe it, but because it cannot be disproven, like evolution and the laws of thermodynamics.

[BADecker]

Science simply isn't (for the most part) out there trying to prove the existence of angels.

Science isn't out there trying to prove anything, that's the difference between faith and science. Science is out there trying to disprove everything that can be disproven. It's called skepticism.

You should try it some time.

Perhaps you are right when speaking about science in the "pure" sense. But because there are many times the lay people who use the word "science" as there are real scientists, and because some of the real scientists along with some politicians corrupt pure expression of real science so that the wrong idea is given to the lay people, and because some scientists are dreamers and express their dreams in connection with science, the word "science" has taken on meaning that is different than the thing that you express above.

things like Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, the idea that stars are nuclear when electric arc law fits star activity better

Stars are nuclear fusion. That is a scientific fact, like evolution, gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics.

I realize that there are lots of things against what is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/. However, there is enough in favor of electric cosmos things, that the nuclear star idea should be in the realm of theory if it isn't.

[Beliathon]

Perhaps you are right when speaking about science

I am right about everything.

I realize that there are lots of things against what is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/. However, there is enough in favor of electric cosmos things, that the nuclear star idea should be in the realm of theory if it isn't.

Psuedo-science can at times seem very compelling for the unwary man of reason.

The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank to crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[2]

EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control.

Claims

-Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
-Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[4]
-The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged -- the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)

1 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1540489/pg1#25433260
2 http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the-electic-sky-book-by-donaldescott-review-discussion-against.pdf
3 http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

[BADecker]

Perhaps you are right when speaking about science

I am right about everything.

I realize that there are lots of things against what is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/. However, there is enough in favor of electric cosmos things, that the nuclear star idea should be in the realm of theory if it isn't.

Psuedo-science can at times seem very compelling for the unwary man of reason.

The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank to crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[2]

EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control.

Claims

-Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
-Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[4]
-The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged -- the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)

1 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1540489/pg1#25433260
2 http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the-electic-sky-book-by-donaldescott-review-discussion-against.pdf
3 http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

However, that isn't the only thing spoken/written about the electric cosmos idea. There are some very compelling points to it.

The other thing is true as well. That is that standard science has within itself some things that are accepted that could be considered pseudo-science. The "theory" part of the scientific method, while necessary as a method for gaining knowledge, borders pseudo-science at times, and even dips into what pseudo-science is once in a while.

For example, Rupert Sheldrake has brought up some very interesting points about science, the scientific method, the constants, and the politics of science, in his banned TED video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg. There is no way for anyone to really know where the fuzzy division between science fact and science fiction really lies. The boundaries are probably in flux all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ted+rupert+sheldrake

[Beliathon]

However, that isn't the only thing spoken/written about the electric cosmos idea. There are some very compelling points to it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

You have now been placed on ignore, because I have come to feel that you are beyond my help. I'm truly sorry.

Please realize that the purpose of my posts is not merely for your benefit, but also for the benefit of the many silent viewers who will read these words.

[Tusk]

The problem is trying to conflate sexual preference with religion, theology, divinity, theism and science is they all mean different things to different people.

Terence McKenna - Science is saying give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest. (the big Bang). Whats flawed with the big Bang? For starters explain how did the Universe expand to its enormous size faster than the speed of Light?

Newton spent more time studying alchemy then he did gravity or light.

Science is just as full of Dogma as religion especially when it comes to cosmology. In many cases science has become is it own religion.

IMHO The easiest way to navigate life, in all cases simply substitute the word God with the word Universe and everything becomes far less complicated or manipulated.

You are part of it and it is part of you, it does not show any fear or favor and anything is possible, you have this life to make with it what you please, so allow others to do the same. Fuck with it and it will fuck you back. It is more alive than we are and it is perfect. Accept that we will never fully comprehend it, that's the mystery of life. It is timeless and yet everything that has and ever will happen only happens in the present.

No two people can occupy the same time and space so it stands to reason that nobody will have matching perspectives, trying to do so only diminishes your reality and makes you someone else's slave.

A brilliant mind shared this wisdom, ``Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. `` - Buckminster Fuller

[TECSHARE]

Considering you refuse to reply to my very on topic statements, and instead just choose to go after easy targets to try to make it look like you have a clue, I am not sure how I can debate myself.

Stop acting like a butthurt child, I'm not your mother. When you write something worth responding to, I'll respond. This shitposting doesn't cut it:

Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

Related Note: He lost his penis because of a botched male genital mutilation.

Ah, there we go with the ad hominem attacks again. I see how it is, as long as you get to frame the subject in whatever way that puts your ideology in a positive light, you will talk all day, but the moment that your theories are demonstrated to be self contradictory then suddenly it is irrelevant.

The video demonstrates that the originator of your gender theories tested them on a boy who had his penis accidentally burnt off during circumcision. He decided it was a good idea to raise him as a girl, and the result was he blew his brains out, and his twin brother ODed on antidepressants. This is direct evidence, from the boys own mouth that he always felt like a boy in spite of everyone treating him as a girl, and it caused him so much distress he ended his life. This is direct evidence that gender identity also has biological drivers and is not 100% conditioning from society. Tell me more about this being off topic, maybe some one will buy your bullshit.

[BADecker]

However, that isn't the only thing spoken/written about the electric cosmos idea. There are some very compelling points to it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

You have now been placed on ignore, because I have come to feel that you are beyond my help. I'm truly sorry.

Please realize that the purpose of my posts is not merely for your benefit, but also for the benefit of the many silent viewers who will read these words.

Thank you. This is quite noble of you.

When you can't rebut the evident points, and you place me on ignore (sticking your head in the sand) you are doing exactly the thing that others must see. You are proving that your science is religion, because you believe it, after it has been shown to be erroneous. You flee when you can't find an answer, and like the universities that know what the truth is but tend to hide it, you would silence me if you could.

Tell you what. It's a lot easier for me to not have to respond to you. And since there are others who will, over the course of time, speak of the things that you and I have spoken of, there will be discussion. The truth of the religious aspect of science and its unholy order of fake high-priest scientists will come out.

[Beliathon]

The video demonstrates that the originator of your gender theories tested them on a boy who had his penis accidentally burnt off during circumcision. He decided it was a good idea to raise him as a girl, and the result was he blew his brains out, and his twin brother ODed on antidepressants. This is direct evidence

You're watching a video about it after the event occurred, it is indirect anecdotal third-hand evidence.

You are proving that your science is religion, because you believe it, after it has been shown to be erroneous.

Perhaps I'm only proving the point that God didn't provide me with the grace to further tolerate your ignorance.

[BADecker]

You are proving that your science is religion, because you believe it, after it has been shown to be erroneous.

Perhaps I'm only proving the point that God didn't provide me with the grace to further tolerate your ignorance.

Hey, folks, do you think he's really serious?   

[Beliathon]

Hey, folks, do you think he's really serious?   

Definitely not.