The body wants what it wants, it doesn't do away just because the usual facilitator dies.

thoth:

You know what baffles me is how you have made several post without ever trying to give a reason to accept your proposition, you just proclaim something and expect that we must accept that, have you ever defended a thesis in your life ? or you just tell your audience to accept what you said or go jump themselves.

Applied Science has allowed mankind......... what is science ? if not an inquiry to nature, is there any form of science that does not arise from curiosity of finding ways solve human inefficiencies by exploiting natural laws ? you thrive in whatever condition you are implying is a fact that humans understand Nature now better than before then and nothing else.

Is avoiding Pregnancy or contraception not a result of careful observation of the Natural Process of inception and therefore with such understanding it could be avoided where inadequate ? contraceptions has always been part of many civilizations for centuries because they carefully observed the Natural process by which it occurs and with knowledge of other natural processes the were able to avoid or terminate pregnancies.

The topic is "10 reasons why Homosexual marriage is harmful and must be Opposed" so if you are going to post again please make a post that has points we can use.

some things were proven wrong and one of those things which has been never been proven wrong was that there is God. if it has been proven then you can refer us to your proof.

I don't require acceptance for my perspectives anymore than the OP should. None of the points, particularly the ones I've chosen focus on, are legitimate premises for opposing same-sex marriage in any given society.

Lets take your example of plants/herbs used as contraceptives/abortion inducers; This was not their original purpose in nature but humans found a way to use harness its properties for a desired consequence. That is Applied Science by definition. What you're expanding on is Pure Science. There is a clear distinction between these terms. I don't know if you're expecting some long reply but its unnecessary.

thoth:

Some one dictates for us her perspective and without reason no explanation tries to force it'down on us , and we should accept for no other reason just that it is her perspective. Sorry but we are not your subjects Queen Denise.



can you read yourself ? how do they even conquer it ? maybe you can explain for us what you mean by conquer in this context.



A simple anthropological research will inform you that humans from time immemorial has valid reasons to believe in God, though reason might differ by geographical extensions but they all contain the same underlining attribute which is the inability to explain certain aspects of nature coupled with profoundly deep philosophical excursions into oneself and the unanswered questions that arose from such.

Falling about without raising facts and ordering people to accept your stance is a pure example of arrogance.

Your issue is more so with my gender than my post. Just keep in mind that you having an issue with my biology is just that, your issue-not mine. Moving on.

Applied science has allowed mankind to survive and thrive in conditions unheard of in the last 5 centuries. The natural consequence of pregnancy, a basic human function, has even been averted. There were valid reasons to believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that certain peoples were meant to serve others by divine or natural law. All of these perspectives were proven wrong. You can expand on man's relationship with nature or "God" to include nuances but the fact remains that Nature, and the non existent God, are no longer viable reasons to intrude on the rights of tax paying citizens in any society.

thoth:

I fail to see the point on your reference to procreation, do you mean to say that Homosexuality is nothing but a means to reduce human population ?

You should first try to understand what is Nature , what the laws of nature are . then you can see that your assumption that humans CONQUERED NATURE IS WRONG, in the sense that it contradicts itself by its own definition.
If you have never given it enough thought i can save you the headache by informing you that humans have never conquered nature and there has never been any plan or effort to do such, rather humans try to UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF NATURE and with that knowledge improve their life standards. everything you have mentioned above is based on the law of nature and how deep it is understood, electromagnetic waves were not created by humans rather humans used its laws(enforced by nature) to make their life better and once you deviate from those laws which guide it your whole endeavor will fail. modern communications technology is based on either optics(laws of light) or electromagnetic(laws which guide movement of energy in space) and both are natural laws. so is all technological inventions that man has ever had.

earth has only one source of energy, which is the sun and based on Natural Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can not be created no destroyed rather we can turn the natural sunlight to chemical energy then transport and back to light energy to light our rooms.

Talking about God, i will rather believe you when can give me a reason to believe that there is no God.

In all your post makes not sense at all.

Starting with a "Do you mean that" is an attempt to misrepresent. Procreation isn't a valid premise to dispute the virtue of same sex marriage. That is my perspective, no more, no less.

And yes humanity has conquered nature and there is no contradiction. The human need to understand nature isn't driven by curiosity, it is to conquer it for the use of sustaining the species at best. Everything else your in reply in regards to nature is filler. Sometimes I wonder if expanding on unnecessary/unrelated details should even be considered a qualified rebuttal.

Until you can prove that there is a God, and you can't, it really doesn't matter if you believe me or not. If anything it's an arrogant attempt to place priority on your personal perspective on my time. I wouldn't suggest doing that, it's intrusive.

We really need a moment of honesty here. Few black people anywhere are ready to embrace the sheer humanity of Africans in antiquity. Any real depiction of greed, despair, lust, jealousy, deceit and other emotions/desires/actions would be considered offensive despite the fact they were omnipresent and the driving force behind (West) Africa's major civilizations. Most of African history is taught and repeated by Blacks, even on the continent, from a tainted perspective to prove Black ingenuity and subsequent progress to non-Blacks, not a celebration of unique cultural synthesis and adaption among Black People before European and Arab influences.

If a Black version of medieval fantasy were conceived and adequately funded it would be rejected; considered sleazy, demonic, and exploitative. So the idea that Blacks "just need their own" or a sense of pride is less than objective-and a convenient excuse.

The premises of nature and procreation are weak and inconsistent.

Procreation: Consider the global human population, only a small percentage in comparison can even afford to sustain the children they make, creating an added burden on limited resources. Humans have no need to further produce offspring. In fact children these days are no more than a means to secure financial resources for women from government a/o willing males. This is true in developed and undeveloped regions.

Nature: Humans have conquered most of nature but we champion it all while we type/txt our responses on cordless electronic devices in air conditioned rooms with artificial light sources. Humans living in areas contrary to their evolved physical characteristics is in of itself against nature.

Oh, and there is no God to offend or dictate morality. Sorry kids, Sky Daddy is a myth.

shizzle11:

Lol@ 'sustained Limerence'
Believe it or not true 'unconditional' love still exists. Its rare particularly in this part of the world but it sure exists.

Actually it never existed and Limerence as a condition is never rare.

True2myself24: Why not? True love has little to do with money

No such thing as "True Love", just sustained Limerence.

Black men don't care about weaves that much. It's just a decoy subject.

pleep: I think we should all move past all this "protection" "head of household" stuff... its not compatible with modern society

I totally agree.

Subomi-luv:
If they bash white women, White men will get upset and will defend them
If they bash asian women, asian men will get upset and will defend them
If they bash latina women, latino men will get upset and will defend them
If they bash arab women, arab men will get upset and will defend them
BUT if they bash black women, they well feel better about themselves (self esteem boost) and No one will challenge them since black guys don't care. In other words, black women are just easy targets since they don't have anyone protecting them, even black men will add to the bashing which is quite sad :-(

It is the MANS job to protect his WOMAN. A woman should not be the one protecting both of them.

Oh man this is going to fun!
I won't say your question isn't valid, its just not the right question. Black men can't protect themselves from each other and even that gets its own special list of excuses. And if you look closer at the groups you've listed, those men are trying to "protect" those women FROM Black men (culture inclusive).

In the United States the protection of women and children was a unisex effort, in other words Black men have never, ever bared the burden of protecting anyone. We have accounts of Black women organizing watches, arming themselves, and even creating protocols for handling threats to their person, families, and property. So sometimes I have to giggle when Black men make it seem like they're withdrawing protection and provision from Black women when they've been in (or accepted) a position to do it in the first place. I think a lot of Black women forget that Black men don't have the same default setting as other groups of men.

It's usually smarter for a women over 40 to diversify her dating pool; color, ethnic group, Western, etc.

A few perks for doing so:
No overbearing/intrusive Mother In Law
No cultural rut (most people only cite culture when its convenient, trust me)
No pretenses, so you can be yourself

Being black takes 10 years off the appearance, even more if the lady is fit. She could use her age to her advantage by being cultured, wise, and self aware-something few younger woman can pull off. No need for a cautionary tale spun by passive aggressive men.

kwangi: Wow!
Looks like you are the one taking offense.
You sound really pissed.
Please do away with the emotional outbursts. You risk sounding incoherent
Try and see things for what they are, even if the reality doesn't go down well with you.

^ Is a better example of "running in circles". I guess the point is to get me to focus on defending my emotional or lack of emotional state instead focusing on the issue. I find this happens a lot with male debaters when they can't support/defend their own premise and the opponent is female. Stay on topic, defend your premise, or concede, either way is better than the stunt you're trying to pull.

kwangi: Na wa o!
I think you've lost it.
Who's the victim?
Read the topic again, it's a question, not a complain.
You see what I 'm talking about? You're assuming things.

You took offense to an observation that doesn't impact your faith or ability to practice it. You still consider it an "attack" and for no good reason other than it made you uncomfortable. Deal with it kiddo, they're saying worse about Blacks in Brazil.

kwangi: ^^There's really nothing in my post that's difficult to understand!
Ok, if they are not attack then what are they?
I think you just don't want to accept that because it doesn't help your argument.
As for the belief part, forget it. Can't you see you are running in circles?

I'm not running in circles, I'm not just giving you what you want; support for your offense. It's not an attack, its an observation that has no affect on your ability to practice your beliefs. You have this idea of how non-religious/non-spiritual people should conduct themselves. You're also projecting; being offended doesn't grant you victim status and that is something you having a problem accepting.

kwangi: A bit extreme? That's an attack!
Just accept that.
Ofcourse, you can't be humble and be in fight mode at the same time! That's why there is lack of humility and 'unwillingness to hide their lack of belief".
Your choice of words are interesting. The way you couched the part about belief...
...Lack of belief! Everybody lacks belief!!!
The question is, in what? There are two ways to say that.
-their lack of belief in the supernatural.
-their belief in the non-existence of the supernatural.
Their (atheist) lack of belief in the supernatural is inevitably a belief in something else. I noticed it was convenient for you to just write lack of belief and just stop there.
Since religion is a belief system, don't you think atheism falls into that category? Atleast, the law courts in your dear country thinks it is.

It's not an attack just because it makes you uncomfortable. Religion is a political economic system, no more no less. I used the word "belief" out of respect for people its more than that. Your problem is that they aren't hiding what they believe and for some reason you feel entitled to an explanation. Go figure.

Louis007: Check me out!

Nice stems kiddo.

SELFWORTH: NL is full of stories of no benefit to anyone.

What are we supposed to gain from this post now?

If she was Nigerian you'd be all over this and it still wouldn't benefit you.

kwangi: The answer is no to all your questions.
As for the Nigerian atheist, being an atheist for him/her is a status of "enlightenment" and "exposure" (You must agree those terms are relative).
They attack everybody who does not subscribe to atheism. Labeling them as ignorant and of lower IQ.
They don't care whether any of the religions under their attack pose any threat to the social, political... life of the society.
And paganism is devoid of any of these ills.
If they consider thing the way those guys in your link do, people would find it hard terming atheism a religion.

Atheism isn't a religion and you're perception of condescension as an attack is a bit extreme. I think you might have an issue with the lack of humility and unwillingness to hide their lack of belief, even daring Muslims, Christians, and Pagans to violate their right to express themselves freely. I find it quite brave.

Mr_Anony:
Surely you do realize that "treating each other as you'd like to be treated" is not an atheistic characteristic. Atheism has no norms so essentially you are free to treat them good or bad since you are not accountable to any higher power.

The golden rule predates religion (polytheistic and monotheistic) and so does the concept of crime and punishment. I'm always puzzled by the assumption that religion is responsible for our basic code of ethics in humanity when in fact it's the opposite. If you'e looking for a debate I'd be happy to accommodate you.

Glad I'm an Atheist. I guess treating each other as you'd like to be treated is too complex.

Mindependent: Honestly, guys abeg tell me? Na so e hard?!

(Nigerian) Women aren't demanding it. This is based on your premise that they aren't romantic of course. When women make something a premium that is what men will acquire. Women like wealth/financial stability so men work for it. If (Nigerian) Women establish the standard of romance and demonstrate their desire by only entertaining romantic men then a prevalence will follow. There is also the burden of making sure there is an incentive. Feminine, healthy (skin, hair, nails, teeth, figure) women would be that incentive. It's old school but we're not talking about occupation or education.

They never tried to dictate our goals. They would question our intentions, to make sure we weren't flaking, but never said something was "a bad idea". So I thank my parents for not being dream killers. They were very diligent when it came to us understanding our worth and identity, something that helped us so far. And finally make sure we understood the value of self employment. Don't get me wrong they loved us, kept us safe, all that. But the satisfaction of saying something belongs to you and creating opportunities so that other people can plan their future is so indescribable. Of all the things they did I believe that was the most valuable lesson growing up.

الملكي فوق الله: i Use to watch Married With Children all The Time as a Kid

Ahhh the 90s were such fun.

I miss those days too.

Some entertainment (and irony) for the discussion. Watch the whole thing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ien5m-KCXUw

kwangi: They don't. What kind of proof do you want or expect. In what form?
That aside, YOU ARE ON POINT!
We're saying the same thing.
But...It's not really that far fetched considering the fact that any attack on religion or religious people covers Paganism.
This' what I mean. Do you think the response in the first link about witchcraft, wiccans, and all that would be the same if those involved were Nigerian Atheists?

I usually look for a consensus in the form of an organization or platform with an agenda. This would meet the standard of evidence as far as proof.

As far as your question; I'm not familiar with the Nigerian Atheist perspective no Pagan belief systems. Do these Pagan beliefs compromise the safety and security of the people, in or outside of it? Does it hinder social progress or influence legislation? Those are usually questions that Atheists ask when assessing a religion /belief system. Nigerian Atheists might see all beliefs systems in that regard. What do you think?

kwangi:
I'll like to believe you misunderstood me.

That might be the case.

kwangi: Like I said before almost everybody understood the quote and it's context. There is nothing to argue there IMO.
Which human being doesn't have one or two things to say about the other?
But in this case, tolerance is the word. Pagans don't give themselves the liberty of condemning people of a different belief. Simple.
I feel you on the Christian/Islam explanation.

And again, for the record, you considered Miller's quote an attack, not me.

kwangi: Like I said before almost everybody understood the quote and it's context. There is nothing to argue there IMO.
Which human being doesn't have one or two things to say about the other?
But in this case, tolerance is the word. Pagans don't give themselves the liberty of condemning people of a different belief. Simple.
I feel you on the Christian/Islam explanation.

I also said there is no proof that they don't. Considering their size, compared to Christianity and Islam, it could be a drown-out. The charge that Atheists "attack" Pagans was pretty far fetched. Pagan beliefs don't conflict with secular living and practitioners don't demand their beliefs be the root for social conduct. Most Atheists stand where religion (in practice) attempts to infringe on society (legal systems-this includes sanctioning death/violence/abuse, education, healthcare, politics, and the economy) in secular nations.

Some examples of the dialogue/attitude between Atheists and Pagans:
http://www.pagandiversity.com/witchcraft-spells/atheists-what-do-you-think-about-wiccans-witches-witchcraft-and-spells
http://www.politicususa.com/fundamentalist-kristi-watts-upset-that-atheists-do-not-hate-wiccans.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/atheism-agnosticism/1132236-how-do-atheists-feel-about-wiccans.html

kwangi: Relax. I think almost everybody understood the quote and it's context.

As for the rest of your answer, beautiful!
But you must realize that not every religion gives themselves the said liberty of condemning people of a different belief. At least, pagans don't.
I understand whenever religion is mentioned, Christianity and Islam comes to mind.

Don't project, you used the word "attack".

Pagans aren't exempt from critique just because they don't offer them, there is no evidence to prove they don't either. Christianity and Islam are to religion what Blacks and Whites are to Race. There are plenty of other racial categories just like there are other religions but these are the groups that represent opposites that need to be negotiated in society.

The same. I'm as expressive and provocative in the real world as I am on this forum.

kwangi: What did you think taking religion" more serious than the practitioners meant"?
I'm not baiting. I never said it was a fact!
Check again.
I'll appreciate it if you explain why they attack people who follow religious doctrines and the doctrines in question.

Your OP didn't state or imply in context that Miller's perspective was an attack, just that you found it to be true. Miller is pointing out an inconsistency, an observation not an attack.

Moving on to your question-thank you for asking-"why they attack people who follow religious doctrines and the doctrines in question."
Because religion and people who ascribe to religion aren't above scrutiny. Atheists give themselves the same liberty to condemn religion (and its followers) as religious people give themselves to condemn unbelievers and believers of a different doctrine.

There are no victims here. <This point is crucial because once an accuser puts themselves in the role of "victim" they not only remove their accountability, they elevate themselves above the rest of humanity.