Gay Marriage

[Avaricious-Anthoney]

Oh my gosh, you're over thinking this razz It's not a paper for a term.
- It's not usually a decision between a heterosexual couple and a gay couple. That would mean that heterosexual couples were beating homosexual couples to the punch, adopting all the other children before them. That isn't the case. There are still many children yet to be adopted, and plenty of homosexual couples that wish to adopt them but they aren't allowed. I.E. My gay uncle and his life partner were denied adoption rights a few years ago. Even though he's in his mid 40's, is VERY wealthy and affluent, he was denied because he was gay. Now, yes, it isn't as bad as it used to be. In fact, 21 states allow same sex adoption. But my uncle, in Florida, can't.
- Citation isn't needed, this is a light discussion and not a term paper. But, either way, here are several links that discuss genetics and biological differences in the brains of homosexuals. Again, others weren't listed because, like I said, this isn't a term paper.
Here discusses the differences in the hypothalamus, one of the key players in the brain game on gay.
Here discusses brain structure as a whole in different genders and orientations.
- To question whether or not homosexuality is "natural," makes me laugh. It is "natural," to be albino? Yes. It isn't usual, but it's natural. If 1 out of 17,000 people, who are albino, can be considered natural (roughly .0059 percent of the American Population), then why can't the more than three percent of the population, which is gay (and also, 508 times more in population?) It's natural.

- Nature Versus Nurture is the debate on whether certain qualities we have are learned or born within us, and it DOES have relevance to the argument. As I stated, from seeing homosexual people in public, your children won't become homosexual. Because it is born in us, and not learned. It's completely related. To say that it's not is kind of ridiculous.

Here there is a brief over view on Hamer and Copeland's findings on genetic markers for homosexuality and why Nature or Nurture can be explained away, from their work in "The Science for Desire:" Two years ago, I DID write a term paper on the subject and included this in my research, I wish I had kept articles and links, I had a full PDF on the file and it was rather interesting. I'm sorry I can't provide that right now.


- Never once did I quote scripture, just something a lot of right winged individuals would say. Example They speak of how children need both a male model and a female model, not two of each.
- Marriage, in its current IS NOT Christian. Your own statistics prove that. 30% of our population is Christian, that's 70% that isn't. So does only 30% percent of the population become married? No. It is in no way strictly religious or reserved for one group. Marriage, as viewed in the court of law, isn't a religious affair. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. It simply is a legal document binding two people together financially and socially. And further to prove that marriage isn't Christian, what about other cultures and religions that have been getting married? Because Hindus have been doing it since before Judaism was even founded in 1900 B.C.E. (thus, predating Christianity by nearly two millennia and even before them, there were the people of Sumeria who have had recorded marriage ceremonies for 5000 years..

None of my points were shallow or "twaddle." And where as you thought I was lacking, yeah, this isn't a term paper or an appeal to the Supreme Court. It's a simple skull and bone, skeletal outline for an argument. You're over working this. Especially since all my points are valid. You're over working this entirely.


 

[Shilberu Erikku]

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

I say just get rid of marriage altogether, ******** RELIGION!

...And I say "nonsense, religion has it's place as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy."

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?  

[Wear Sunscreen]

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

I say just get rid of marriage altogether, ******** RELIGION!

...And I say "nonsense, religion has it's place as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy."

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

Void of meaning does not mean void of purpose.
Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive either. Science is a way of understanding how the natural world works. Religion is a way of understanding how the metaphysical and spiritual world works (sometimes.) Religion in the past has answered questions that science ca now, and continues to answer questions that science never wil be able to - for example, what happens after we die.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, science nor philosophy can 'disprove' God. Atheism is actually as faith-based a belief as theism is. Science has not replaced religion, and assumably never will. The secularization thesis was incredibly wrong - religion is actually on the rise in "modern scientific society." In fact, people have hated this sort of cold nihilism for years (see the entire Modernist cultural movement.)

Why do fundamentalists exist? Because people think differently.  

[Wear Sunscreen]

Meeatu

This is not entirely true.
Although I will agree that socially recognized unions have been around since time immemorial and established through ritual or ceremony, MARRIAGE in its current form is relatively new.
As such, the "it's kind of our thing" argument still stands.
Where civil partnership and some form of legal union MUST be provided, MARRIAGE is inherently a Christian practice and you would need to provide further argument to prove that it should be extended to homosexuals.

This is absolutely not true.

Christianity is an amalgamation of Hellenistic and Judaic practices.
Christianity did not even exist until the 1st century C.E.

The Jewish people have had Marriage 'in its current form' (with the addition of some polygamy) since the Torah. Thousands of years before the Common Era.
So, I think its 'kind of our thing.' In fact, the first half of your bible is 'kind of our thing.' Nevertheless, you constantly derive new and totally different meaning from it than the Jewish people do. So, as an extension of your argument, you should...cut that out?  

[Atrum_Anima]

I think the root of the problem is that one particular kind of religious union, or simply religious union in general, is set up with better government privileges. In my mind, the government should see all types of unions solely as "civil unions" and allow the subjects call it what they will: Marriage, Partnership, Civil Union, Handfasting, etc.

In this perspective it should go without saying that the subjects of the union (and whether or not they're man and woman) shouldn't even come up.  

[Wear Sunscreen]

Atrum_Anima

I think the root of the problem is that one particular kind of religious union, or simply religious union in general, is set up with better government privileges. In my mind, the government should see all types of unions solely as "civil unions" and allow the subjects call it what they will: Marriage, Partnership, Civil Union, Handfasting, etc.

In this perspective it should go without saying that the subjects of the union (and whether or not they're man and woman) shouldn't even come up.

This is called Marriage Privatization.
I think its a good idea.  

[CheizLord]

wow... my head is spinning after reading all of that and I feel like everyone's already brought up mostly every aspect of the subject but just to state my opinion here anyway I've always felt that, as many others have said that other people shouldn't have a say in the lives of people, especially if that person isnt affected by their decision in any way.

I mean what would happen if homosexuals were suddenly against heterosexual marriage? I doubt that would go over well. When the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't feel so good, does it?  

[Shilberu Erikku]

Wear Sunscreen

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

I say just get rid of marriage altogether, ******** RELIGION!

...And I say "nonsense, religion has it's place as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy."

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

Void of meaning does not mean void of purpose.
Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive either. Science is a way of understanding how the natural world works. Religion is a way of understanding how the metaphysical and spiritual world works (sometimes.) Religion in the past has answered questions that science ca now, and continues to answer questions that science never wil be able to - for example, what happens after we die.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, science nor philosophy can 'disprove' God. Atheism is actually as faith-based a belief as theism is. Science has not replaced religion, and assumably never will. The secularization thesis was incredibly wrong - religion is actually on the rise in "modern scientific society." In fact, people have hated this sort of cold nihilism for years (see the entire Modernist cultural movement.)

Why do fundamentalists exist? Because people think differently.

If only human beings were indifferent supercomputers capable of nothing but love and lust  

[Meeatu]

Shilberu Erikku

If only human beings were indifferent supercomputers capable of nothing but love and lust

What a boring world that would be.  

[Meeatu]

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

I say just get rid of marriage altogether, ******** RELIGION!

...And I say "nonsense, religion has it's place as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy."

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

You and I have come at this impasse before, as such, I will quote myself to save time.

"Yes, yes, and we can all descend into apathetic sedation and our whole society can simply cease, and everyone simply allow themselves to die, and it will be no loss, because life and society were meaningless to begin with."

The answer to your first question: Nothing. Nothing is 'wrong' with it, in terms of rational thought. Your reasoning is fair.

To the second, however: What is precisely so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all etc is that we are biologically self-important creatures: Though you may see it as logical for life to have no meaning, you cannot accept it even yourself!

Could you, you'd never make a conscious act or decision again, and simply allow yourself to die. This would be easy for you.

Deny it as we try, we as human beings NEED to feel that we are important, and if I choose to do that through not only science, but religion as well, who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

As to your final question: I imagine that the reason religions have fundamentalists, is precisely the same that rationality and logical thought (not to mention any social-ideology) has it's own fundamentalists: because ideologies are incompatible, and we cannot live with that, either morally (as I believe is unjust), or (in the long run) physically.  

[Shilberu Erikku]

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

I say just get rid of marriage altogether, ******** RELIGION!

...And I say "nonsense, religion has it's place as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy."

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

You and I have come at this impasse before, as such, I will quote myself to save time.

"Yes, yes, and we can all descend into apathetic sedation and our whole society can simply cease, and everyone simply allow themselves to die, and it will be no loss, because life and society were meaningless to begin with."

The answer to your first question: Nothing. Nothing is 'wrong' with it, in terms of rational thought. Your reasoning is fair.

To the second, however: What is precisely so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all etc is that we are biologically self-important creatures: Though you may see it as logical for life to have no meaning, you cannot accept it even yourself!

Could you, you'd never make a conscious act or decision again, and simply allow yourself to die. This would be easy for you.

Deny it as we try, we as human beings NEED to feel that we are important, and if I choose to do that through not only science, but religion as well, who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

As to your final question: I imagine that the reason religions have fundamentalists, is precisely the same that rationality and logical thought (not to mention any social-ideology) has it's own fundamentalists: because ideologies are incompatible, and we cannot live with that, either morally (as I believe is unjust), or (in the long run) physically.

I wouldn't allow myself to die, cause even though life doesn't have a definite meaning, we create our own.  

[Wear Sunscreen]

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

You and I have come at this impasse before, as such, I will quote myself to save time.

"Yes, yes, and we can all descend into apathetic sedation and our whole society can simply cease, and everyone simply allow themselves to die, and it will be no loss, because life and society were meaningless to begin with."

The answer to your first question: Nothing. Nothing is 'wrong' with it, in terms of rational thought. Your reasoning is fair.

To the second, however: What is precisely so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all etc is that we are biologically self-important creatures: Though you may see it as logical for life to have no meaning, you cannot accept it even yourself!

Could you, you'd never make a conscious act or decision again, and simply allow yourself to die. This would be easy for you.

Deny it as we try, we as human beings NEED to feel that we are important, and if I choose to do that through not only science, but religion as well, who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

As to your final question: I imagine that the reason religions have fundamentalists, is precisely the same that rationality and logical thought (not to mention any social-ideology) has it's own fundamentalists: because ideologies are incompatible, and we cannot live with that, either morally (as I believe is unjust), or (in the long run) physically.

I wouldn't allow myself to die, cause even though life doesn't have a definite meaning, we create our own.

Tada! Existentialism.

You know that the father of Existentialism was super, duper Christian?
I suggest you read up on Soren Kierkegaard.  

[Meeatu]

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

You and I have come at this impasse before, as such, I will quote myself to save time.

"Yes, yes, and we can all descend into apathetic sedation and our whole society can simply cease, and everyone simply allow themselves to die, and it will be no loss, because life and society were meaningless to begin with."

The answer to your first question: Nothing. Nothing is 'wrong' with it, in terms of rational thought. Your reasoning is fair.

To the second, however: What is precisely so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all etc is that we are biologically self-important creatures: Though you may see it as logical for life to have no meaning, you cannot accept it even yourself!

Could you, you'd never make a conscious act or decision again, and simply allow yourself to die. This would be easy for you.

Deny it as we try, we as human beings NEED to feel that we are important, and if I choose to do that through not only science, but religion as well, who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

As to your final question: I imagine that the reason religions have fundamentalists, is precisely the same that rationality and logical thought (not to mention any social-ideology) has it's own fundamentalists: because ideologies are incompatible, and we cannot live with that, either morally (as I believe is unjust), or (in the long run) physically.

I wouldn't allow myself to die, cause even though life doesn't have a definite meaning, we create our own.

God is hardly definite, were they, there would be no argument.
If you're existentialist, but not nihilistic, then, I choose to create my own meaning in the form of a god.  

[Shilberu Erikku]

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

Meeatu

Shilberu Erikku

religion is just a childish escape from reality/responsiblity/thinking for oneself,an excuse to kill someone out of autrohobia, an unneccesary repression of human nature,

So let me get this straight... (heh... straight ^___^)
You're a 16 year old "dude" who's interests include "p***s" and "v****a" and who's favorite reads consist primarily of smut, with all the literary credit of a common garden snail. As such, you are able to draw from your vast pool of experience and intelligence to essentially trump the moral decision-making skills of 30something percent of the worlds population.

Ok, I'm with you so far...

You discount even the notion that religion is a considered affair.
No. It must have been just a story that someone once came up with out of the blue, that caught on well!

You also call it "an unnecessary (shall I fix that for you?) repression of human nature" with no consideration of the two obvious flaws of that argument. Firstly, there is a question of whether it is a repression of human nature at all, and not an extension of it. (Does art mimic life, or life mimic art?) And secondly, if it would really be a bad thing to repress human nature. We are fairly vile creatures at heart.

Other than that, you declaim confidently that religion "has no place in a modern scientific society." and that "people need to move up with the times so our technology can match that of scifi."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, sweetheart, but religion already DOES have a place within a modern scientific study. And for the sake of future
generations I hope it continues to.

I know this may blow your little leftist noodle, but religion and scientific method are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You have to view (as I mentioned) religion as an extension of situationalized or parable philosophy. It provides a guide, a set of preformed morals from which we can choose, and found our own moral guidelines on.

All in all, people need purpose.
Some all encompassing, great plan.
And religion offers that to the people it works for.
Who are you to take that away from them?

Oh, that's right, you're a 16 yr old.
Ergo; you know best and should rule the world.

but what's so bad about the only points to life being eating and ******** and life being completely meaningless?What's so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all, whatsoever?Also, if religion does indeed have a place within a modern scientific society, then why do some religions have fundimentalists?

You and I have come at this impasse before, as such, I will quote myself to save time.

"Yes, yes, and we can all descend into apathetic sedation and our whole society can simply cease, and everyone simply allow themselves to die, and it will be no loss, because life and society were meaningless to begin with."

The answer to your first question: Nothing. Nothing is 'wrong' with it, in terms of rational thought. Your reasoning is fair.

To the second, however: What is precisely so depressing about a life where you don't matter at all etc is that we are biologically self-important creatures: Though you may see it as logical for life to have no meaning, you cannot accept it even yourself!

Could you, you'd never make a conscious act or decision again, and simply allow yourself to die. This would be easy for you.

Deny it as we try, we as human beings NEED to feel that we are important, and if I choose to do that through not only science, but religion as well, who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

As to your final question: I imagine that the reason religions have fundamentalists, is precisely the same that rationality and logical thought (not to mention any social-ideology) has it's own fundamentalists: because ideologies are incompatible, and we cannot live with that, either morally (as I believe is unjust), or (in the long run) physically.

I wouldn't allow myself to die, cause even though life doesn't have a definite meaning, we create our own.

God is hardly definite, were they, there would be no argument.
If you're existentialist, but not nihilistic, then, I choose to create my own meaning in the form of a god.

At this point, I say we should agree to disagree sweatdrop