Explain Atheism to Justinian2

[Mister Agenda]

If some of you believe that there is no gene responsible for homosexual tendencies, then just say it and quit beating around the bush. I’m not going to argue this point too much – it was intended as a flip statement.

I don't think there's a particular gene responsible for homosexual tendencies, although I wouldn't be surprised if there's a genetic (or epigenetic) component. It seems likely that there's a congenital component, as there's a lot of room for variation in developing brains, especially male brains which have to develop from brains that start out virtually identical to female brains. An environmental component can't be ruled out either. It could be that some people are homosexual because of their genes, some are homosexual because of their in utero development, and some are homosexual because of circumstances of early childhood...and maybe all those things apply to some people and they're 'extra' homosexual. Of course, the exact same reasoning applies to heterosexuals and bisexuals.

 

[AdMan]

Atheists seem proud of their sometimes absolute ignorance of religion.

Your own ignorance is showing, Mr. "OT8."

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

 

[Twiler]

Ignored.

Good grief, talk about a lack of basic reading comprehension...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Atheists seem proud of their sometimes absolute ignorance of religion.

Possibly some are. Atheists are a diverse bunch. OTOH, if you conclude that there are no gods, that is rather all-inclusive, and there is no reason to study individual religions, except out of cultural curiosity.

I like to understand religions and evaluate them for myself. I don't like to have peer pressure cause me to make a black/white decision on any subject or person.

I feel just the same.

Whether people are religious or nonreligious, I resent them telling me what I should or should not believe.

I feel just the same.

That's why I'm demanding that atheists show religious tolerance. (just kidding about the word demanding) Whether or not people are religious or nonreligious, they should show religious tolerance.

That would be great, yes. Remember, this includes tolerance for non-religious.

Hans

 

[Justinian2]

No, what you actually said was:

OK, that one got away from me. I'm not obsessed with making every statement absolutely perfect. If I did that, my statements would read like legal contracts. And who reads legal contracts - except lawyers?

I mean who reads legal contracts with the attention to detail they require.

 

[Twiler]

OK, that one got away from me. I'm not obsessed with making every statement absolutely perfect. If I did that, my statements would read like legal contracts. And who reads legal contracts - except lawyers?

Is he serious?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

It says: "A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though. "

From Wikipedia:

Sheesh. As long as there are horses and donkeys and they can interact, there will be mules, because the existence of mules doesn't depend on a particular gene getting passed along. It depends on horses and donkey not diverging to the point that hybridization becomes impossible. It's unlikely that will happen in the next 10,000 years.

The reason it keeps getting brought up is that you predict homosexuals will become extinct and in practically the same breath acknowledge that mules are around for the long term.

 

[Mister Agenda]

What's so strange and mysterious about homosexuality? Of the straight men I known (personally) some have a thing for boobs, some for thighs, some for feet (and shoes, oddly enough) and at least one for hair. That is where you get homosexuality from, and it's no more disgusting than a man wanting to 'worship' their wife's feet.

A type of paraphilia? Maybe, there is a tendency for men to stick with whatever first got them off, and boys will be boys. I'll add it to the list. When I was twelve, I would certainly have supported fighting the homosexual scourge by having pubescent boys serviced by MILFs.

 

[Justinian2]

Possibly some are. Atheists are a diverse bunch. OTOH, if you conclude that there are no gods, that is rather all-inclusive, and there is no reason to study individual religions, except out of cultural curiosity.

I feel just the same.


I feel just the same.


That would be great, yes. Remember, this includes tolerance for non-religious.

Hans

Interesting agreement.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have asked a similar question in one of J2's other threads and had no response so I'll try again. This time with an applicable quote from the Master,

How does one select from LRon's multitudinous deranged ramblings and decide which are true and which are false?

J2 says he loves gays (or at least has gay friends) and yet LRon gives them a tone of 1.1 and then goes on to say: "No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum 1.1's. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst." (Science of Survival, Book 1, Chapter 13, p. 90). How are these two positions reconciled?

If LRon is wrong here then when is he right?

 

[H'ethetheth]

It's interesting that you assimilated the ten commandments.

I thought them helpful as examples of what you can derive, because everyone in the western world knows them. Note that it's only half of the commandments, though.

 

[Mister Agenda]

There might be a genetic pro-survival reason why some children in large families - whether they are homosexual or not - choose not to have children of their own. Perhaps, like you say, they see that their genes are being carried on by their brothers and sisters and do not see the need to have children of their own.

I'm aware that evolution has at least a couple of different mechanisms. New theories are that evolution isn't all genetic mutation or natural selection.

It does cut down on the pressure to provide grandchildren. If I had been an only child, I would probably have chosen to have children.

 

[Twiler]

I have asked a similar question in one of J2's other threads and had no response so I'll try again. This time with an applicable quote from the Master,

How does one select from LRon's multitudinous deranged ramblings and decide which are true and which are false?

J2 says he loves gays (or at least has gay friends) and yet LRon gives them a tone of 1.1 and then goes on to say: "No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum 1.1's. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst." (Science of Survival, Book 1, Chapter 13, p. 90). How are these two positions reconciled?

If LRon is wrong here then when is he right?

Justinian2 does seem to be following the same principle of 'say whatever occurs to you at the time'.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I thought them helpful as examples of what you can derive, because everyone in the western world knows them. Note that it's only half of the commandments, though.

Only half of them make sense, and it would have been nice if 'thou shalt not rape' and 'thou shalt not enslave' had made it to the big ten.

 

[Justinian2]

A type of paraphilia? Maybe, there is a tendency for men to stick with whatever first got them off, and boys will be boys. I'll add it to the list. When I was twelve, I would certainly have supported fighting the homosexual scourge by having pubescent boys serviced by MILFs.

Ha. Had to look up MILF. What you're talking about is illegal, but I'm sure both the mothers and the boys would love to follow that suggestion if they could.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Only half of them make sense, and it would have been nice if 'thou shalt not rape' and 'thou shalt not enslave' had made it to the big ten.

Sure, though I'm not sure why you're telling me this.
It's not as though I listed my complete set of reasonable morals.

 

[Justinian2]

I have asked a similar question in one of J2's other threads and had no response so I'll try again. This time with an applicable quote from the Master,

How does one select from LRon's multitudinous deranged ramblings and decide which are true and which are false?

The nuts and bolts of Scientology are in the technical bulletins and the policy letters. They were in a state of constant revision and some were canceled.

The people that know Scientology the best took the Special Briefing course (a couple of times) which consists of important things that LRH wrote or recorded. It takes about six months of full time study to complete.

The books are a usually reliable source, but sometimes LRH said slightly different things at different times. This is reflected in the Technical Dictionary which quotes from several of his books and bulletins. You can see the slightly different ideas expressed with each explaination.

LRH's 'Research and Discovery' series is a massive encyclopedia that is 16 volumes long. Each book is 900 encyclodedia sized pages long. These are just lectures about the research and ramble on and on. These volumes are referred to in case there is a question about some of the other materials.

None of what LRH said or wrote was discarded.

The 'What is Scientology' book is the best encapsulation of Scientology. The 20 basic books and lectures are also fundamental. The twelve large volumes of Technical Bulletins contains all the processes of auditing.

 

[Justinian2]

J2 says he loves gays (or at least has gay friends) and yet LRon gives them a tone of 1.1 and then goes on to say: [/FONT]"No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum 1.1's. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst." (Science of Survival, Book 1, Chapter 13, p. 90). How are these two positions reconciled?

If LRon is wrong here then when is he right?

Independant Scientologists now think that statement about homosexuals was inconsistant with LRH's other materials and was merely reflective of the 1950 era.

LRH was talking about criminals when said: "No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst." Criminals according to the Scientology tone scale have a tone of 1.1.

Your society removes the 1.1s from their midst by sending them to prison or deporting them. Universities remove them by not accepting them, by flunking them and by expelling them. Industry fires them.

Of course people that are not 1.1 also get flunked and dismissed.

 

[Complexity]

Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though.

Thank you for making your ignorance of science so apparent.

 

[Chris L]

OK, that one got away from me. I'm not obsessed with making every statement absolutely perfect. If I did that, my statements would read like legal contracts. And who reads legal contracts - except lawyers?

I mean who reads legal contracts with the attention to detail they require.

Since you were the one accusing the poster of lying about what you said, it's not a matter of a simple detail. Look, it's not our fault you can't keep track of your own story. You really should have written all this stuff down so you could see the logical inconsistencies in the narrative you are posting. Please try to keep up, otherwise you will lose your entertainment value.