Pastor Says

[Thorne]

you can't force someone to accept someone else. if my father had told me that if I didn't go to college in x state, he wouldn't have helped me pay for it, he's completely within his rights to do that. if my father tells me if i was gay he wouldn't talk to me, he's completely free to do that. it's not coercion, it's just someone being whiney they don't get their way.

It is attempted coercion. Your father is using his authority to try and force you to do as he wishes. Unless you can afford to pay for your own college, if you don't do what he wants you risk not getting the education you want. If you were gay, he wouldn't speak to you (which might actually be a good thing!) But what if he tells you that if you don't marry the old widow next door he'll toss you out on your own? And you're only 14 years old? What real choice would you have? Sometimes, submitting is the safer choice. That doesn't make it any less coercive.

this is the most illogical thing i've ever heard. CUCKOLDED MEN DON'T LAST IN THE EVOLUTIONARY GENE POOL! if you're really this much of a self-hating man, i pity you

They do if they are also cheating on their wives! And I don't hate myself. I respect women. Even married one. JUST one.

this happens, they're called swingers

Yes, it does happen. But it's a lot riskier if the husband can't insure that his wife won't get pregnant by another man.

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of. only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

Except that the outlaw biker is prone to live hard and die young. And the women he's using aren't likely to live long, either. Certainly not if they get pregnant and lose their appeal. The 'nice' guy will tend to live longer, and therefore have more opportunity for sexual encounters, and far more likelihood of having healthy, viable offspring.

One thing evolution demonstrates is that anti-social, even criminal, activity is not necessarily a positive trait. People like that don't tend to propagate nearly as often or as successfully as more normal, acceptable males. Yes, alpha males will have a better chance of mating with the most desirable females. But in human terms, at least, one of the more desirable characteristics of a prospective husband and father is stability. And outlaw bikers don't typically have that.

[thir]

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of.

Agreed! And no one - noone - knows how groups and societies were organises in those distant times.

only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

Then call me a fool, because that is exactly what I think.

Anyway, you keep talking about marriage and getting kids, and who do you think most women would want to marry? According to your line of reasoning, the one who would help support the kids.

Honestly, I think there is a sort of misunderstanding between men and women in these matters. Some men seem to think that being a criminal or off society violent person is macho, and that that will attract women. But I think that the things that (might) give points between men are not neccesarily the things that (might) score with women.

[Punish_her]

Agreed! And no one - noone - knows how groups and societies were organises in those distant times.



Then call me a fool, because that is exactly what I think.

Anyway, you keep talking about marriage and getting kids, and who do you think most women would want to marry? According to your line of reasoning, the one who would help support the kids.

Honestly, I think there is a sort of misunderstanding between men and women in these matters. Some men seem to think that being a criminal or off society violent person is macho, and that that will attract women. But I think that the things that (might) give points between men are not neccesarily the things that (might) score with women.

incredibly, unequivocally false. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGMTBVFQJ1.DTL

[leo9]

Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun.

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking. Of course that would place it way back in the days when we still had a mating season.

And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line.

One of the biggest fallacies in pop evolution is that there is one "best" genotype. The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

[Punish_her]

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking.

the prevailing theory is that a girl who had too much pleasure from sex would impregnate too often, therby putting her and her children's life in harm's way given her vulnerability during the gestation. this is why the clitoris is outside the vagina

One of the biggest fallacies in pop evolution is that there is one "best" genotype. The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

i beg to differ. strength, speed, and physical fitness are good in any climate- this is why women prefer a higher shoulder to hip ratio. furthermore, being intelligent is a nonissue. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038...SIN=0385342160 there is no time where a woman will leave a fit, healthy man for a fat man just because it gets cold. the reverse would be true, she has limited eggs and doesn't want to waste them with duds. this is why humans have less genetic diversity than other mammals though we have more numbers. there is a certain set of traits that all females from nearly every culture finds attractive, things like syymetry, distance between eyes relative facial width and so on. and to hammer it home, we are descended from 2 to 3 times more females than males, so the genetic winners amongst the y chromosomes were a select few, not women breeding with a diverse group of men

[Thorne]

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking.

My personal theory is that most women have difficulty reaching orgasm because their mates don't know HOW to make them orgasm. I'm still gathering data on that, though!

The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

I can see that as a valid survival strategy. One part of the problem IMO is that the human race is short-circuiting evolution, allowing those with poor survival characteristics to survive due to artificial intervention (medicine). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, morally speaking. Just saying that it might not be in the best interests of the human race, ultimately. I certainly wouldn't want to set up genetic tribunals to determine who should be allowed to reproduce!

[thir]

My personal theory is that most women have difficulty reaching orgasm because their mates don't know HOW to make them orgasm. I'm still gathering data on that, though!

A complex thing indeed ;-)
At least until one has managed to wriggle out of various counter-productive ideas imposed in an early age. Or can by-pass them with the help of various bdsm styles ;-)

I can see that as a valid survival strategy. One part of the problem IMO is that the human race is short-circuiting evolution, allowing those with poor survival characteristics to survive due to artificial intervention (medicine). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, morally speaking. Just saying that it might not be in the best interests of the human race, ultimately. I certainly wouldn't want to set up genetic tribunals to determine who should be allowed to reproduce!

What are the best survival traits, and are they in the best long-term interest oif the human race?

I cannot help thinking of some of the most brilliant physicist minds trapped in a wheelchair. Or the woman without legs who finished a marathon - will power worthy to pass on? Sick people who can beget healthy survivors?

I think immediate survival is not the same as the interest of the species, and even in the very beginning, handicapped people were taken care of - at least in some places. Who knows, maybe they knew things of importance, or could take care of the children, or were good story-tellers?

[Thorne]

So you're admitting that it's a naturally occurring state, even among other species? Then what's the objection to it in humans? Homosexual marriage wouldn't just be for sex, obviously. They can do that without the hassle of marriage. So there is a social issue there. Hell, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages which don't necessarily involve sex. Why are people so squicked by what might be happening behind closed doors of homosexuals? And it's almost always MALE homosexuality which bothers them. You seldom hear them talking about lesbians. I guess that's not so icky, is it?

[Punish_her]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/sc...inds.html?_r=3

[Alchemystic]

I read as much as my head could handle, so if I missed someone else making the points I am about to, I apologize.

1) Mankind has been hijacking religion and manipulating it to control and subvert the masses for as long as there have been humans walking the earth. A favorite tactic amongst the thumpers is to cherry pick scripture to prove whatever. Here is but one telling example of thousands: "Children obey your parents." If you went to a Christian church as a child, you heard it, over and over and over. What most don't realize is that this pillar of good christian parenting is an incomplete instruction. Those who quote it never continue with the second part: "and parents do not anger your children, lest you turn them unto darkness." The complete verse paints a different picture than the partial one most of us had crammed down our throats.

2) I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the canon, a condemnation of homosexuality from the divine. Neither God, God's child, nor the holy spirit is ever heard to say one word against homosexuality. The only such scripture is in Leviticus, which was and is a handbook of sorts for the Priests. It is a human that says, "when a man layeth with another man, as with a woman, it is an abomination." Again, it's what is left out that makes the difference. The verses before and after the oft quoted portion all deal with what is proper behavior within the sanctuary on a day of worship. In plain language, what is basically being said is, "Hey, no buttfucking in the pews on Sunday." From this passage we are told, quite erroneously, that being gay is an "abomination". Twisting scripture to exclude and condemn an entire group of people, all of whom are just as much "God's Children" as those doing the condemning? Now that's an abomination all it's own.

3) There are no genes governing gender preference. None whatsoever. Current theory is that hormonal antagony within the womb informs gender preferences for the fetus. We know that there are many examples of same sex sexual dynamics all across the planet. Nature doesn't seem to care if anyone's gay or not. There is no law or theory that says everything that happens has to be for some kind of evolutionary purpose. Nature itself seems to enjoy diversity. Human beings looking to validate their own prejudices will cling to whatever is available to justifty their views. Anything is preferable to having to admit being wrong. Spiritual belief or non-belief, and what anyone does with their sex organs are personal matters that are really nobody's business. Why we as a society spend so much time on these private issues is beyonnd me. Are we so insecure that we have to force belief and practice on each other, so we can feel better about ourselves? When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.

[Thorne]

1) Mankind has been hijacking religion and manipulating it to control and subvert the masses for as long as there have been humans walking the earth.

Not hijacking, inventing! Charlatans are constantly finding new ways to separate the flock from their money, and keep them from thinking about reality. Religion is not some object that people can bend and twist. It's a psychological tool meant to control people, and as such has been used properly by shamans since its formation.

2)...Twisting scripture to exclude and condemn...

A favorite tactic of fundamentalists. For every 10 priests reading a verse of scripture, you can get 12 different interpretations, depending on the bogeyman of the day.

Here's a picture of a guy with the verse from Leviticus tattooed on his arm. Yet it seems he ignored the verse from the very next chapter that says, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you:" (lev19:28). As is usual, it's only the things that they don't like that scripture condemns. Everything else is just "suggestions".

3) Human beings looking to validate their own prejudices will cling to whatever is available to justifty their views. Anything is preferable to having to admit being wrong. Spiritual belief or non-belief, and what anyone does with their sex organs are personal matters that are really nobody's business.

Except that controlling such things is the easiest way to control a population. That's the whole point of religion (and politics, too), to maintain control. For the benefit of the leaders, of course, not the people.

Are we so insecure that we have to force belief and practice on each other, so we can feel better about ourselves? When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.

Amen!

[Punish_her]

ironically from the devout atheist who feels compelled to discredit religion at every turn . . . a blinding flash of irony

[Thorne]

From Dictionary.com
a·men
   [ey-men, ah-men]
interjection
1.
it is so; so be it (used after a prayer, creed, or other formal statement to express solemn ratification or agreement).
adverb
2.
verily; truly.

Nothing necessarily ironic about it. I was simply agreeing with your wish:

When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.

Just because the churches have appropriated the word for their own use doesn't mean that it is ONLY a religious word!

Still, it's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated.

[Punish_her]

i didnt really follow any of that buuuuuuuut
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-0...f-control.html - religion evolves because it reinforces fitness-increasing behaviors

[Thorne]

i didnt really follow any of that buuuuuuuut
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-0...f-control.html - religion evolves because it reinforces fitness-increasing behaviors

As the article notes, this is all preliminary. VERY preliminary. There are many different ideas about the usefulness of religion, or more precisely, religious-tyoe thinking. People need to be able to recognize danger. Our minds tend to see things in randomness, seeking familiar patterns, especially dangerous ones. Religions tend to use this ability of the mind to convince people that things exist, whether or not there's any evidence for those things. And many religions, the big three certainly, place a high premium on frightening believers into behaving in unnatural ways. If you are afraid for your immortal soul, you will naturally be inclined to exhibit self-control. But who places the value on these social behaviors? The same people who tell you that it would be sinful to perform such acts.

I'll wait to see where this line of exploration goes, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are many other means of achieving the same results without using religion. Rampant, mindless patriotism comes to mind, for one.

And a little googling comes up with this: a more detailed report.

Among other things, they say that "[Improved self-control] could have been caused by other confounding constructs coactivated by the religion prime, such as morality concepts or death-related concerns." And, "In a more general sense, religion may be more of a cultural construct; it could be that the idea of an omniscient god has something to do with it, but it might not be the whole story."

As I said, this might be something, or it may simply be one of many actions which could get the same results. It's still very preliminary. And I would be interested to see the results when done by someone who was not himself primed to accept religion. (Mr. Rounding is Catholic.)

In any event, the possible fact that the human mind might be predisposed to believe in fairy tales says nothing about the veracity of those tales.