Harvard Pro-Sex and Anti-Sex Crusaders Make Us Want to Ignore Them, Have Sex

Harvard Pro-Sex and Anti-Sex Crusaders Make Us Want to Ignore Them, Have SexYesterday, Harvard’s Lena “I lowered my mouth over his cock and slid my lips over his shaft easily” Chen (our Favorite Person Ever) debated the merits of pre-marital sex with Janie Fredell, the co-president of True Love Revolution (which, believe it or not, is not a 60′s band you’ve never heard of, but a campus abstinence group). We sent correspondent Alterrell Mills to get the scoop.

The highly-anticipated “debate” between Lena “I lowered my mouth over his cock and slid my lips over his shaft easily” Chen and the co-President of the True Love Revolution, Janie Fredell, was truly not worth the wait. Before the event, I met with an overeager Janie who emphasized that it was “a discussion, not a debate about sex and dating.” And here I was, thinking we had a regular Lincoln and Douglass on our hands! Discussion, indeed.

Janie arrived early, while Lena came right on time. Both ladies held true to form in terms of appearance; Lena wore a mini-skirt that left little to the imagination, while Janie was more modestly dressed in jeans.

The ladies started off by defining their sexuality. Janie stated that she was abstinent, and that the kind of guy she was interested in was “chivalrous, strong yet gentle” and ultimately worth the wait. Janie wants a man who respects her ambitions, and values more than just sex in their relationship. She also added that she could get sexual gratification from “a battery-operated plastic object.” Lena replied, “I derive great joy from battery-operated objects.”

Ewww.

After the jump: let’s talk about sex, baby.

On their definition of sex:

LC: “Anything involving penetration, manual penetration”
JF: “[Laughs] Ditto!”
LC: “Stress Relief”
JF: “I go for a run”

Janie mentioned how sex causes a release of oxytocin that clouds judgment. This is like a conservative pseudo-science similar to creationism. Well cloud my judgment if you can find me a fix of endorphins/ hormones that are equally as good.

“Why should we care about love, it’s just love?”

“True love is unconditional appreciation for their existence, more spiritual than physical.”

This sentiment seemed to occur throughout the evening as many questions pertained to sexual-and emotional-gratification. Janie spoke of only being able to receive emotional gratification from a human, but that sexual gratification could be achieved elsewhere (like, from one of Rick Santorum’s dogs?). Lena’s view was of course that she should be able to do “whatever the hell she wanted” if it felt good.

When asked by audience members, Janie said that she’ll know she has found the right person when “the stars have aligned,” having an emotional and intellectual connection. When asked if true love was destined, she at first said you have to find the right person and then countered that “not everyone will find their true love.” Lena conceded that true love was worth waiting for, but stated that there could be more than one true love. If we are not destined to find a true love, then why not just get in all the lovin’ now?

Then a couple elitist nerds came out of the woodwork. Audience members cited Immanuel Kant and his absolutes and proceeded to confound other audience members as well as the panelists. One audience member wanted to know why she had received a Valentine’s Day card and candy from TLR, encouraging her to wait for marriage but not offering support for her sexual decisions. The virginal remained, defending their TLR-ness, while the less true seemed to leave of out boredom. Maybe TLR just aren’t having sex because they can’t keep people interested? I could be wrong, as Janie mentioned that the TLR’s membership “could get plenty.” A weird boast.

The lackluster debate made me feel like I should not have waited but actually done something more casual and fun.

Highlights:

JF: “I’ve never been widowed.” In response to, “What if your one and only true love were to die?”

Woman in audience: “Do you worry that you are bringing all of your past into your marital bed.” She further insinuated that her bed would consist of a more than a group, but a crowd.

JF: “I want a virgin!” Said by many guys, but this was in response to her future husband. How about 72 virgins?

JF: “What do you think, I haven’t had sex?” Well I guess it wouldn’t be appropriate to say don’t knock it (boots, beds, sheets) until you try it-Oh, wait, that’s counter to TLR.

LC: “Signing my life away.” Lena’s view of marriage.

JF: “Two becomes one.” Janie likes the Spice Girls as well as commitment.

LC: “If you pay, I’ll consider it a date. My guys always pay.” This sounds creepy, almost mafia-like. Lena was in fact using working girl jargon, where date/party equal paid sexual encounters (but with Lena, you never really know). This was in response to a male in the audience asking about what constitutes a date.

JF: “My mother found out by seeing me on TV.” Sounds like something Lena would have said, but alas it is how Mrs. Fridell found out about her daughter’s lack of sexual activity.

And then these words of wisdom.  LC: “If we can cure cancer, we can find the G-spot.”

Overheard: “Well, that wasn’t as good as I thought it would be.”

– Alterrell Mills

  • @ to Reason

    “In closing, the reason this argument cannot evolve is because @Reason is challenging religion with deductive reasoning, when religion, at its best, follows from inductive reasoning.”
    -Your closing is rather interesting and is definitely grounds for another highly controversial debate. I’ll reply to this after work.
    -dn

  • @ to Reason

    “In closing, the reason this argument cannot evolve is because @Reason is challenging religion with deductive reasoning, when religion, at its best, follows from inductive reasoning.”
    -Your closing is rather interesting and is definitely grounds for another highly controversial debate. I’ll reply to this after work.
    -dn

  • Reason

    @ to Reason:

    Points taken, but again, they don’t apply to everyone. The people who accept everything unquestioned may also be the people who haven’t given the whole issue thought from a scientific standpoint. Whereas, I have gone out of my way to research, to read people like Richard Dawkins, to get as much of the story as possible. Making assumptions about beliefs or how people reached them is a dangerous road to follow, I think.

    On that note, I think this discussion can continue because I challenge the idea that religious beliefs can only result from inductive reasoning. One does not have to begin with the supposition that the Bible is divinely inspired, for instance; one can come to that conclusion with his own reasoning. Here’s just an example: “The Bible predicts and then documents Jesus’s coming and resurrection. We already have evidence that Jesus existed and that certain events documented in the New Testament occurred. And there is evidence that the resurrection is real given the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw him after he died (Simon Greenleaf’s law argument; you don’t have to accept it, but it’s an argument). A resurrection is supernatural, so it must come from some God. How did those writing the Bible know it would happen? God probably told them. Therefore, God probably inspired the writers of the Bible.” That’s just a rough example, but just because one person’s reasoning doesn’t match yours does not mean it is not deductive reasoning.

  • Reason

    @ to Reason:

    Points taken, but again, they don’t apply to everyone. The people who accept everything unquestioned may also be the people who haven’t given the whole issue thought from a scientific standpoint. Whereas, I have gone out of my way to research, to read people like Richard Dawkins, to get as much of the story as possible. Making assumptions about beliefs or how people reached them is a dangerous road to follow, I think.

    On that note, I think this discussion can continue because I challenge the idea that religious beliefs can only result from inductive reasoning. One does not have to begin with the supposition that the Bible is divinely inspired, for instance; one can come to that conclusion with his own reasoning. Here’s just an example: “The Bible predicts and then documents Jesus’s coming and resurrection. We already have evidence that Jesus existed and that certain events documented in the New Testament occurred. And there is evidence that the resurrection is real given the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw him after he died (Simon Greenleaf’s law argument; you don’t have to accept it, but it’s an argument). A resurrection is supernatural, so it must come from some God. How did those writing the Bible know it would happen? God probably told them. Therefore, God probably inspired the writers of the Bible.” That’s just a rough example, but just because one person’s reasoning doesn’t match yours does not mean it is not deductive reasoning.

  • Reason

    To clarify the deductive-ness of that, it rests on the principle that resurrection (after 3 days, during which the body starts to rot) is not natural and cannot be explained by science. If resurrection is observed, then it cannot be natural and must come from another source (or not have actually occurred). However, I think @Reason’s principle is more like: Anything that is not natural or cannot be explained by science cannot be true. If that were the principle, then the argument I gave would indeed fall apart, and the conclusion would be that the witnesses were lying, or whoever documented their testimonies were lying– the observation could not have been real, even if there were overwhelming evidence that it was real. That’s one of the problems with deductive reasoning; you have to know all the axioms beforehand. But it’s often not clear what the full range of axioms are. We don’t know that “unnatural” things, unexplained by science, cannot occur because we only see our world from a human viewpoint and could be missing something larger. So using that as a given throws all notions of spirituality into the toilet from the beginning.

    Perhaps some inductiveness comes into the argument I gave, in the sense that based on a limited evidence of something unnatural, we conclude that unnatural things can happen. The actual conclusion should be unnatural things can happen, or this unnatural thing did not actually happen. So again, there is no definitive conclusion because we have limited axioms to work with.

  • Reason

    To clarify the deductive-ness of that, it rests on the principle that resurrection (after 3 days, during which the body starts to rot) is not natural and cannot be explained by science. If resurrection is observed, then it cannot be natural and must come from another source (or not have actually occurred). However, I think @Reason’s principle is more like: Anything that is not natural or cannot be explained by science cannot be true. If that were the principle, then the argument I gave would indeed fall apart, and the conclusion would be that the witnesses were lying, or whoever documented their testimonies were lying– the observation could not have been real, even if there were overwhelming evidence that it was real. That’s one of the problems with deductive reasoning; you have to know all the axioms beforehand. But it’s often not clear what the full range of axioms are. We don’t know that “unnatural” things, unexplained by science, cannot occur because we only see our world from a human viewpoint and could be missing something larger. So using that as a given throws all notions of spirituality into the toilet from the beginning.

    Perhaps some inductiveness comes into the argument I gave, in the sense that based on a limited evidence of something unnatural, we conclude that unnatural things can happen. The actual conclusion should be unnatural things can happen, or this unnatural thing did not actually happen. So again, there is no definitive conclusion because we have limited axioms to work with.

  • Reason

    CORRECTION!: However, I think @Reason’s principle is more like: Anything that is not natural or cannot be explained by science cannot be true. If that were the principle, then the argument I gave would indeed fall apart, and the conclusion would be that the witnesses were lying, whoever documented their testimonies were lying, the observation could not have been real, or Jesus naturally came back to life (if there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus was resurrected, even if a natural explanation conflicts with science).

  • Reason

    CORRECTION!: However, I think @Reason’s principle is more like: Anything that is not natural or cannot be explained by science cannot be true. If that were the principle, then the argument I gave would indeed fall apart, and the conclusion would be that the witnesses were lying, whoever documented their testimonies were lying, the observation could not have been real, or Jesus naturally came back to life (if there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus was resurrected, even if a natural explanation conflicts with science).

  • to Reason

    I don’t have my own definition for deductive reasoning. It is a well defined term and I use its literal meaning.
    I agree that your 12:02 post contains reason. In fact, it contains reason by induction. Your twice-use of the word “probably” cinched it.

    The difference is that deduction consists of self-consistent arguments built over a finite set of axioms. Induction is invoked once one’s axioms prove to be insufficient at determining a single outcome. (In other words, you are forced to choose the most probable, or just your favorite – the point is that the choice isn’t determined by your initial set of axioms). You have not shown that the conclusion you came to above is the only possible answer, but rather suggested this to be true based on likelihood. This is a textbook case of inductive reasoning.

    “That’s one of the problems with deductive reasoning; you have to know all the axioms beforehand”
    This is why religion is at best inductive. It doesn’t mean you can’t use deduction, but it does mean that at some point you will have to resort to induction, and this will always be the weak part of your argument (because it can always be challenged). Deduction, on the other hand, is always sound. It’s interesting that it would require a God-like omniscience in order to deduce the existence of God. You would have to be God to offer a proof of God.

    And I would be wary about invoking Simon Greenleaf. His arguments are designed to manipulate the procedures and practices of an American courthouse, which has a standard of proof that is much lower than… well, almost anything.

  • to Reason

    I don’t have my own definition for deductive reasoning. It is a well defined term and I use its literal meaning.
    I agree that your 12:02 post contains reason. In fact, it contains reason by induction. Your twice-use of the word “probably” cinched it.

    The difference is that deduction consists of self-consistent arguments built over a finite set of axioms. Induction is invoked once one’s axioms prove to be insufficient at determining a single outcome. (In other words, you are forced to choose the most probable, or just your favorite – the point is that the choice isn’t determined by your initial set of axioms). You have not shown that the conclusion you came to above is the only possible answer, but rather suggested this to be true based on likelihood. This is a textbook case of inductive reasoning.

    “That’s one of the problems with deductive reasoning; you have to know all the axioms beforehand”
    This is why religion is at best inductive. It doesn’t mean you can’t use deduction, but it does mean that at some point you will have to resort to induction, and this will always be the weak part of your argument (because it can always be challenged). Deduction, on the other hand, is always sound. It’s interesting that it would require a God-like omniscience in order to deduce the existence of God. You would have to be God to offer a proof of God.

    And I would be wary about invoking Simon Greenleaf. His arguments are designed to manipulate the procedures and practices of an American courthouse, which has a standard of proof that is much lower than… well, almost anything.

  • Reason

    Ok, I was trying to give you some leeway, but sticking to the strict definition of deductive reasoning, then, the reality is that none of us are using it. @Reason is not using deductive reasoning if he concludes that there is not God. How does he know? He doesn’t. Most reasoning is inductive because we do not have the omniscient power to evoke deductive reasoning in these instances.

  • Reason

    Ok, I was trying to give you some leeway, but sticking to the strict definition of deductive reasoning, then, the reality is that none of us are using it. @Reason is not using deductive reasoning if he concludes that there is not God. How does he know? He doesn’t. Most reasoning is inductive because we do not have the omniscient power to evoke deductive reasoning in these instances.

  • @ both

    Have you ever heard the saying “Take it outside”? How about you taking this off-site? Thanks.

  • @ both

    Have you ever heard the saying “Take it outside”? How about you taking this off-site? Thanks.

  • rooting for both of you

    no, no, keep it up. Eventually we might beat Aleksey Vayner for most comments on an article.

  • rooting for both of you

    no, no, keep it up. Eventually we might beat Aleksey Vayner for most comments on an article.

  • dylan

    “This is why religion is at best inductive. It doesn’t mean you can’t use deduction, but it does mean that at some point you will have to resort to induction, and this will always be the weak part of your argument (because it can always be challenged).”

    -To say that faith/religion is based on inductive logic isn’t entirely accurate. More specifically, it hinges on Bayesian inference (see Baye’s theorem). To say that inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic isn’t also not 100% true. While conclusions arrived at by inductive logic don’t necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises (and as such they are never binding), they can be cogent. Further, there are weak and strong inductions.
    But more importantly, inductive logic lies at the root of the scientific method that has done so much to advance humanity in the last 5 centuries. Properly-applied scientific method is inductive reasoning in its purest form. Kind of ironic, since religion and scientism don’t normally co-evolve. A paradox then?

    To Reason:
    You asserted that there are noticeable supporting ‘evidences’ for many of the stories in the Bible. Inferentially, they aren’t factual evidence. Only theories. However, I’ll qualify your stance by saying that deductive reasoning cannot be used to prove the existence or non-existence of God. It is ontologically, cosmically, deductively impossible.

  • dylan

    “This is why religion is at best inductive. It doesn’t mean you can’t use deduction, but it does mean that at some point you will have to resort to induction, and this will always be the weak part of your argument (because it can always be challenged).”

    -To say that faith/religion is based on inductive logic isn’t entirely accurate. More specifically, it hinges on Bayesian inference (see Baye’s theorem). To say that inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic isn’t also not 100% true. While conclusions arrived at by inductive logic don’t necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises (and as such they are never binding), they can be cogent. Further, there are weak and strong inductions.
    But more importantly, inductive logic lies at the root of the scientific method that has done so much to advance humanity in the last 5 centuries. Properly-applied scientific method is inductive reasoning in its purest form. Kind of ironic, since religion and scientism don’t normally co-evolve. A paradox then?

    To Reason:
    You asserted that there are noticeable supporting ‘evidences’ for many of the stories in the Bible. Inferentially, they aren’t factual evidence. Only theories. However, I’ll qualify your stance by saying that deductive reasoning cannot be used to prove the existence or non-existence of God. It is ontologically, cosmically, deductively impossible.

  • d

    Correction: To say that inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic IS also not 100% true.

  • d

    Correction: To say that inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic IS also not 100% true.

  • Reason

    Yes, what I should have said at the beginning was that deductive logic cannot show us either way whether God exists. I got to that eventually, but my first comment was confusing, so sorry about that. I was showing that the same type of reasoning could be used to believe in God or not, but even if that starts deductively, the deduction eventually is lost due to uncertainty. The major point is that there is not a distinction in the type of logic.

  • Reason

    Yes, what I should have said at the beginning was that deductive logic cannot show us either way whether God exists. I got to that eventually, but my first comment was confusing, so sorry about that. I was showing that the same type of reasoning could be used to believe in God or not, but even if that starts deductively, the deduction eventually is lost due to uncertainty. The major point is that there is not a distinction in the type of logic.

  • to d and Reason

    I agree that most reasoning is inductive. You would be paralyzed with indecision if not for induction. But take physics: Starting with Newton’s laws as axioms one can deductively infer all of statistical mechanics. Add Heisenberg and you have quantum mechanics for free. Then an easy inductive argument allows you to apply these theories to nature. So physics and math are islands of deduction, which only require a single, simple inductive argument for their application.

    I take issue with the statement, “inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic IS also not 100% true.” In the literal sense it is weaker.

    Finally, the fact that religion follows from inductive arguments is a subtle, but not superficial point. It means there are alternative explanations that have not strictly been ruled out. This is a trivial observation from a logicians point of view, but it is nontrivial from a religious perspective when you considers the canon of Christianity, that God is the ONLY truth.

    I will leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves.

  • to d and Reason

    I agree that most reasoning is inductive. You would be paralyzed with indecision if not for induction. But take physics: Starting with Newton’s laws as axioms one can deductively infer all of statistical mechanics. Add Heisenberg and you have quantum mechanics for free. Then an easy inductive argument allows you to apply these theories to nature. So physics and math are islands of deduction, which only require a single, simple inductive argument for their application.

    I take issue with the statement, “inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic IS also not 100% true.” In the literal sense it is weaker.

    Finally, the fact that religion follows from inductive arguments is a subtle, but not superficial point. It means there are alternative explanations that have not strictly been ruled out. This is a trivial observation from a logicians point of view, but it is nontrivial from a religious perspective when you considers the canon of Christianity, that God is the ONLY truth.

    I will leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves.

  • sex v. marriage

    I wonder if either Lena or Janie have taken into consideration that the Bible expresses that sex IS marriage? (1 Corinthians 6:16) So basically, Lena is getting married and divorced over and over again, and probably could be considered a polygamist… and if Janie ever does have sex with anyone, whether it’s legal marriage or not, she’s basically marrying that person (or those people, depending on if her mind ever changes).

    Actually, my real point isn’t even marital status. It’s that promiscuity truly does affect your heart, especially in girls. I think it affects one primarily in a spiritual way, but it also causes a lot of baggage. Most guys out there would rather end up for life with a girl like Janie over a girl like Lena. I speak from experience from Janie’s point of view (although I waited til I was “married” – see definition above). Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)

  • sex v. marriage

    I wonder if either Lena or Janie have taken into consideration that the Bible expresses that sex IS marriage? (1 Corinthians 6:16) So basically, Lena is getting married and divorced over and over again, and probably could be considered a polygamist… and if Janie ever does have sex with anyone, whether it’s legal marriage or not, she’s basically marrying that person (or those people, depending on if her mind ever changes).

    Actually, my real point isn’t even marital status. It’s that promiscuity truly does affect your heart, especially in girls. I think it affects one primarily in a spiritual way, but it also causes a lot of baggage. Most guys out there would rather end up for life with a girl like Janie over a girl like Lena. I speak from experience from Janie’s point of view (although I waited til I was “married” – see definition above). Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)

  • sex and marriage are the same

    I wonder if either Lena or Janie have taken into consideration that the Bible expresses that sex IS marriage? (1 Corinthians 6:16) So basically, Lena is getting married and divorced over and over again, and probably could be considered a polygamist… and if Janie ever does have sex with anyone, whether it’s legal marriage or not, she’s basically marrying that person (or those people, depending on if her mind ever changes).

    Actually, my real point isn’t even marital status. It’s that promiscuity truly does affect your heart, especially in girls. I think it affects one primarily in a spiritual way, but it also causes a lot of baggage. Most guys out there would rather end up for life with a girl like Janie over a girl like Lena. I speak from experience from Janie’s point of view (although I waited til I was “married” – see definition above). Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)

  • sex and marriage are the same thing

    I wonder if either Lena or Janie have taken into consideration that the Bible expresses that sex IS marriage? (1 Corinthians 6:16) So basically, Lena is getting married and divorced over and over again, and probably could be considered a polygamist… and if Janie ever does have sex with anyone, whether it’s legal marriage or not, she’s basically marrying that person (or those people, depending on if her mind ever changes).

    Actually, my real point isn’t even marital status. It’s that promiscuity truly does affect your heart, especially in girls. I think it affects one primarily in a spiritual way, but it also causes a lot of baggage. Most guys out there would rather end up for life with a girl like Janie over a girl like Lena. I speak from experience from Janie’s point of view (although I waited til I was “married” – see definition above). Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)

  • @sex/marriage

    “Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)”

    that’s a matter of opinion/perspection.

  • @sex/marriage

    “Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)”

    that’s a matter of opinion/perspection.

  • @sex/marriage

    “Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)”

    correction/typo: that’s a matter of opinion/”perspective”

  • @sex/marriage

    “Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)”

    correction/typo: that’s a matter of opinion/”perspective”

  • Haha

    @ the Jew who thinks of the OT as the “bible.” Nice try, Jewkass.

  • Haha

    @ the Jew who thinks of the OT as the “bible.” Nice try, Jewkass.

  • Wow! The Atheist Wins Hands Do

    One objection though- It makes no sense for you to hate Islam more than Christianity and Judaism because the former is more scientific than the latter two (fanaticism aside). Also, it is obvious to me that the Jew envies the Atheist’s perspicacity and that Reason does NOT ATTEND HARVARD. Brown maybe, but definitely NOT HARVARD.

  • Wow! The Atheist Wins Hands Down

    One objection though- It makes no sense for you to hate Islam more than Christianity and Judaism because the former is more scientific than the latter two (fanaticism aside). Also, it is obvious to me that the Jew envies the Atheist’s perspicacity and that Reason does NOT ATTEND HARVARD. Brown maybe, but definitely NOT HARVARD.

  • Atheist Wins

    Hands Down. He most sublimely embodies Ivyleagueness.

  • Atheist Wins

    Hands Down. He most sublimely embodies Ivyleagueness.

  • takoma

    Lena is a busted up ugly ho. Who in the world want to TAP THAT. And she is probably a virgin.

  • takoma

    Lena is a busted up ugly ho. Who in the world want to TAP THAT. And she is probably a virgin.

  • normalpeople

    I guess it is true what they say about ivyleaguers: YOU GUYS ARE ALL F’ED UP!

  • normalpeople

    I guess it is true what they say about ivyleaguers: YOU GUYS ARE ALL F’ED UP!

  • atheism is wise

    Hi religious folk,
    First of all, I was dismayed to see the way the so-called religious people treated D10; if you do, in fact, believe in a god, then atheists will be punished anyway (at least according to the Christian worldview), so it really makes no sense to debate these issues with atheists when our supposed afterlives will technically clear everything up, and you will certainly have the last laugh if you were right. Secondly, whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Ironic. Needless to say, I do think you make several good, interesting points supporting religion. I just don’t think it’s enough, and that clearly, many of D10′s points simply went unaddressed and unanswered because, well, there’s no rational response about the many fallacies in the Bible. Furthermore, why a compassionate god could perform random miracles centuries ago but turn a blind eye to today’s atrocities is simply unanswerable, even by the foremost theologists, who have largely concluded that there is a ‘larger plan’ meant to teach us wisdom through suffering. However, this does not account for the immense suffering experienced by nonhuman animals, much of which occurs due to Christian-centric beliefs about man’s supposed superiority over beasts. Nor does it account for the demeaning attitude of many Jews, Muslims, and Christians towards Eastern religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. In short, there are a lot of questions atheists have, and we do, in fact, have a right to mock beliefs which have been harmful to society by way of sexism, racism, and speciesism. Further, while I do not respect theistic beliefs, I still respect theists. Theists are theistic for various reasons and deserve respect for who they are. But free speech is free speech, and religious beliefs ought to be criticized – or at the very least questioned – in order to prevent the moral stagnation of humanity. I just don’t think that criticizing religion amounts to “hating on” theists. Many of my best friends of believers, and I adore them. I just disagree.

    Love,
    M

  • atheism is wise

    Hi religious folk,
    First of all, I was dismayed to see the way the so-called religious people treated D10; if you do, in fact, believe in a god, then atheists will be punished anyway (at least according to the Christian worldview), so it really makes no sense to debate these issues with atheists when our supposed afterlives will technically clear everything up, and you will certainly have the last laugh if you were right. Secondly, whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Ironic. Needless to say, I do think you make several good, interesting points supporting religion. I just don’t think it’s enough, and that clearly, many of D10′s points simply went unaddressed and unanswered because, well, there’s no rational response about the many fallacies in the Bible. Furthermore, why a compassionate god could perform random miracles centuries ago but turn a blind eye to today’s atrocities is simply unanswerable, even by the foremost theologists, who have largely concluded that there is a ‘larger plan’ meant to teach us wisdom through suffering. However, this does not account for the immense suffering experienced by nonhuman animals, much of which occurs due to Christian-centric beliefs about man’s supposed superiority over beasts. Nor does it account for the demeaning attitude of many Jews, Muslims, and Christians towards Eastern religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. In short, there are a lot of questions atheists have, and we do, in fact, have a right to mock beliefs which have been harmful to society by way of sexism, racism, and speciesism. Further, while I do not respect theistic beliefs, I still respect theists. Theists are theistic for various reasons and deserve respect for who they are. But free speech is free speech, and religious beliefs ought to be criticized – or at the very least questioned – in order to prevent the moral stagnation of humanity. I just don’t think that criticizing religion amounts to “hating on” theists. Many of my best friends are believers, and I adore them. I just disagree.

    Love,
    M

  • atheism is wise

    Hi religious folk,
    First of all, I was dismayed to see the way the so-called religious people treated D10; if you do, in fact, believe in a god, then atheists will be punished anyway (at least according to the Christian worldview), so it really makes no sense to debate these issues with atheists when our supposed afterlives will technically clear everything up, and you will certainly have the last laugh if you were right. Secondly, whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Ironic. Needless to say, I do think you make several good, interesting points supporting religion. I just don’t think it’s enough, and that clearly, many of D10′s points simply went unaddressed and unanswered because, well, there’s no rational response about the many fallacies in the Bible. Furthermore, why a compassionate god could perform random miracles centuries ago but turn a blind eye to today’s atrocities is simply unanswerable, even by the foremost theologists, who have largely concluded that there is a ‘larger plan’ meant to teach us wisdom through suffering. However, this does not account for the immense suffering experienced by nonhuman animals, much of which occurs due to Christian-centric beliefs about man’s supposed superiority over beasts. Nor does it account for the demeaning attitude of many Jews, Muslims, and Christians towards Eastern religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. In short, there are a lot of questions atheists have, and we do, in fact, have a right to mock beliefs which have been harmful to society by way of sexism, racism, and speciesism. Further, while I do not respect theistic beliefs, I still respect theists. Theists are theistic for various reasons and deserve respect for who they are. But free speech is free speech, and religious beliefs ought to be criticized – or at the very least questioned – in order to prevent the moral stagnation of humanity. I just don’t think that criticizing religion amounts to “hating on” theists. Many of my best friends of believers, and I adore them. I just disagree.

    Love,
    M

  • atheism is wise

    Hi religious folk,
    First of all, I was dismayed to see the way the so-called religious people treated D10; if you do, in fact, believe in a god, then atheists will be punished anyway (at least according to the Christian worldview), so it really makes no sense to debate these issues with atheists when our supposed afterlives will technically clear everything up, and you will certainly have the last laugh if you were right. Secondly, whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Ironic. Needless to say, I do think you make several good, interesting points supporting religion. I just don’t think it’s enough, and that clearly, many of D10′s points simply went unaddressed and unanswered because, well, there’s no rational response about the many fallacies in the Bible. Furthermore, why a compassionate god could perform random miracles centuries ago but turn a blind eye to today’s atrocities is simply unanswerable, even by the foremost theologists, who have largely concluded that there is a ‘larger plan’ meant to teach us wisdom through suffering. However, this does not account for the immense suffering experienced by nonhuman animals, much of which occurs due to Christian-centric beliefs about man’s supposed superiority over beasts. Nor does it account for the demeaning attitude of many Jews, Muslims, and Christians towards Eastern religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. In short, there are a lot of questions atheists have, and we do, in fact, have a right to mock beliefs which have been harmful to society by way of sexism, racism, and speciesism. Further, while I do not respect theistic beliefs, I still respect theists. Theists are theistic for various reasons and deserve respect for who they are. But free speech is free speech, and religious beliefs ought to be criticized – or at the very least questioned – in order to prevent the moral stagnation of humanity. I just don’t think that criticizing religion amounts to “hating on” theists. Many of my best friends are believers, and I adore them. I just disagree.

    Love,
    M

  • Guestie