I don't need no ...

[Fallen Prophet]

For some - as to attitudes towards females (perhaps seeing no equivalence with males on so many things); attitudes to children (as to expecting to be able to educate/indoctrinate into the same religion - and often no other); attitudes to those who are non-binary sexually and for those with whatever attractions not seen as appropriate; doctrines that may not help unity and/or are a drag on any progress we might want to see - given that we can't have all of the outcomes that some religions want or expect; the division and conflicts they often cause, etc.

You don't see any negative effects?

None.

Everything you have described are effects of the human condition - not any religion.

If religion were to case at this very moment - people would still be divided and conflicts would ensue.

 

[Mock Turtle]

None.

Everything you have described are effects of the human condition - not any religion.

If religion were to case at this very moment - people would still be divided and conflicts would ensue.

That is just a fallacious argument - there are other causes too - as if reducing at least one cause doesn't have any effects when it often does. And many of the things I quoted, and more, are mostly driven by religious beliefs and the doctrines that come from the appropriate authorities.

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't need no religion to tell me how to be moral - for others, you are welcome
I don't need no religion to tell me about what will happen when I die - I'll just wait, thanks
I don't need no religion to separate me from others
I don't need no religion to guide me, especially where such might be wrong
I don't need no religion to tell me nonsense about the past
Etc.

Your arguments with Trappist orders must be intense. (Silent orders).

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That is just a fallacious argument - there are other causes too - as if reducing at least one cause doesn't have any effects when it often does. And many of the things I quoted, and more, are mostly driven by religious beliefs and the doctrines that come from the appropriate authorities.

The vast majority of conflicts in human history had nothing to do with religion.

You are - ironically - just looking for a scapegoat.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The vast majority of conflicts in human history had nothing to do with religion.

You are - ironically - just looking for a scapegoat.

Not really. Those who don't see the conflicts caused by such beliefs are just denying the downsides of their belief systems - when they could equally well have a belief in God or whatever without the associated mess that usually comes with religions - as outlined in the OP and here - What have (some) religions ever done for us? | Religious Forums. I've never said that religions were the sole cause of conflict or even the major cause - just the most intractable ones so often.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Not really. Those who don't see the conflicts caused by such beliefs are just denying the downsides of their belief systems - when they could equally well have a belief in God or whatever without the associated mess that usually comes with religions - as outlined in the OP and here - What have (some) religions ever done for us? | Religious Forums. I've never said that religions were the sole cause of conflict or even the major cause - just the most intractable ones so often.

No - you are just wrong.

All of the "conflicts" you mentioned about women, children and "non-binary" people (which don't exist since there are only the two biological sexes) would still be there even if religion never existed.

Because human beings are human beings.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No - you are just wrong.

All of the "conflicts" you mentioned about women, children and "non-binary" people (which don't exist since there are only the two biological sexes) would still be there even if religion never existed.

Because human beings are human beings.

Well to repeat your mantra - No - you are just wrong.

My gripe with religions goes a lot further than just attitudes to females and others. If you choose to ignore much of science (binary sex and all - just get educated on this), as so many of the religious persuasion do, then that is your prerogative, but it does effectively lower your intelligence and also cut you off from much knowledge as we gain such. All because one believes in a particular book - hardly a good enough reason is it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

All of the "conflicts" you mentioned about women, children and "non-binary" people (which don't exist since there are only the two biological sexes) would still be there even if religion never existed.
Because human beings are human beings.

Yeah, nothing changes, if God and religions are removed. These things are peripheral to human existence.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Well to repeat your mantra - No - you are just wrong.

My gripe with religions goes a lot further than just attitudes to females and others. If you choose to ignore much of science (binary sex and all - just get educated on this), as so many of the religious persuasion do, then that is your prerogative, but it does effectively lower your intelligence and also cut you off from much knowledge as we gain such. All because one believes in a particular book - hardly a good enough reason is it?

You are acting no different than the religionists you are mocking.

Biology dictates that there are only two biological sexes. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

You - on the other hand - are clinging to this ideology that contradicts the facts.

At least when it comes to most religionists - it is impossible to disprove their beliefs - like the existence of God and such.

I understand that there are political hacks disguised as scientists who are pushing the narrative of "non-binary" and other nonsense - but they have no facts - only feelings and conviction.

Just like many of the religionists you blame for everything.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are acting no different than the religionists you are mocking.

Biology dictates that there are only two biological sexes. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

As I said - get educated - as to how there isn't such a simple male/female distribution - as to genes and as to genders. You are just another head-in-the-sand spouter of what appeals to your eyes and not the actual evidence. Science and medicine have shown that it is not as simple as you like to believe. And where did this belief come from - your religion? Look at the graphics in this article - the one labelled Beyond XX and XY.

Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum - Scientific American Blog Network

You - on the other hand - are clinging to this ideology that contradicts the facts.

Hardly, when I tend to go with the actual evidence rather than what I want to believe.

At least when it comes to most religionists - it is impossible to disprove their beliefs - like the existence of God and such.

I couldn't care less as to proofs of God - it's the religions that bother me, and the effects they have on so many. As you are displaying.

I understand that there are political hacks disguised as scientists who are pushing the narrative of "non-binary" and other nonsense - but they have no facts - only feelings and conviction.

Rubbish. Quote some serious science that only believes in males and females, and hence only male and female attraction (and opposite) for these? You might try looking at other life while you are at it - to see how common homosexual behaviour is amongst so many species, even our closest relatives, the bonobos.

Just like many of the religionists you blame for everything.

Not true, mate, I just blame them for some things.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

As I said - get educated - as to how there isn't such a simple male/female distribution - as to genes and as to genders.

Sorry - it's hard to do that - when you consider that I have objective reality and all of human history telling me that there are only two biological sexes/genders.

You are just another head-in-the-sand spouter of what appeals to your eyes and not the actual evidence.

If my head is in the sand - how can I see anything - let alone things that appeal to me?

I'm a huge sci-fi and anime nerd - so I wish there were hot sexy alien babes and cat-girls - but there aren't.

Just men and women. Nothing more. Nothing in between.

Science and medicine have shown that it is not as simple as you like to believe.

Oh God - are you going to start talking about sexual disorders and stuff - trying to use exceptions and outliers to change the rules?

And where did this belief come from - your religion?

Nope - as I said - objective reality and all of human history. Not to mention all mammalian biology.

Look at the graphics in this article - the one labelled Beyond XX and XY.

Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum - Scientific American Blog Network

Yeah....

DSDs aren't examples of third or infinite sexes or genders. Just like someone being born with nine fingers wouldn't change what they were - a human being of one of the two sexes with nine fingers.

And sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual identity - why do these "experts" keep lumping them together?

Hardly, when I tend to go with the actual evidence rather than what I want to believe.

Bro - the only "evidence" you have shared is that we are not "cookie-cutter" people.

Some of us - a very minute fraction of us - are born with disorders that affect their primary and secondary sexual characteristics and chromosomes.

They have disorders - not fairy tale sex designations. Sorry.

All you are seeing is what you want to believe.

I couldn't care less as to proofs of God - it's the religions that bother me, and the effects they have on so many. As you are displaying.

You believe that only religious people know that there are only two biological sexes/genders?

That's a very ignorant thing to believe.

It may be impossible to prove the existence of God - but it is very easy to disprove all this "non-binary" crap.

Rubbish. Quote some serious science that only believes in males and females, and hence only male and female attraction (and opposite) for these?

Aw - the classic - "Whose "expert" is right?" game - it's not fun and it is not productive.

You would just reject anyone I would quote from - claiming that they are not "real scientists" - simply because they disagree with you and "the narrative".

And what's this about "male and female attraction"?

I thought we were talking about sexual identity and "non-binary" garbage.

You might try looking at other life while you are at it - to see how common homosexual behaviour is amongst so many species, even our closest relatives, the bonobos.

Wtf?

Who is talking about homosexuality?

Not true, mate, I just blame them for some things.

Doesn't look that way.

You have been claiming that - since I am a religionist - I am unable to become educated and I can't discern fact from opinion.

Which is funny since these are all the things you are guilty of - but I digress.

If all religionists are unable to learn things or discern reality from fantasy - that makes a whole lot of problems - maybe all of them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sorry - it's hard to do that - when you consider that I have objective reality and all of human history telling me that there are only two biological sexes/genders.

If my head is in the sand - how can I see anything - let alone things that appeal to me?

I'm a huge sci-fi and anime nerd - so I wish there were hot sexy alien babes and cat-girls - but there aren't.

Just men and women. Nothing more. Nothing in between.

Oh God - are you going to start talking about sexual disorders and stuff - trying to use exceptions and outliers to change the rules?

Nope - as I said - objective reality and all of human history. Not to mention all mammalian biology.
Yeah....

DSDs aren't examples of third or infinite sexes or genders. Just like someone being born with nine fingers wouldn't change what they were - a human being of one of the two sexes with nine fingers.

And sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual identity - why do these "experts" keep lumping them together?

Bro - the only "evidence" you have shared is that we are not "cookie-cutter" people.

Some of us - a very minute fraction of us - are born with disorders that affect their primary and secondary sexual characteristics and chromosomes.

They have disorders - not fairy tale sex designations. Sorry.

All you are seeing is what you want to believe.

You believe that only religious people know that there are only two biological sexes/genders?

That's a very ignorant thing to believe.

It may be impossible to prove the existence of God - but it is very easy to disprove all this "non-binary" crap.

Aw - the classic - "Whose "expert" is right?" game - it's not fun and it is not productive.

You would just reject anyone I would quote from - claiming that they are not "real scientists" - simply because they disagree with you and "the narrative".

And what's this about "male and female attraction"?

I thought we were talking about sexual identity and "non-binary" garbage.

Wtf?

Who is talking about homosexuality?

Doesn't look that way.

You have been claiming that - since I am a religionist - I am unable to become educated and I can't discern fact from opinion.

Which is funny since these are all the things you are guilty of - but I digress.

If all religionists are unable to learn things or discern reality from fantasy - that makes a whole lot of problems - maybe all of them.

Not going to answer most of this wishy-washy nonsense. You stated there were no "non-binary" people (which don't exist since there are only the two biological sexes), and yet when evidence is provided to show that this isn't true you ignore it. I think knowing such, any reasonable person might suspect that sexual attraction (as in homosexuals etc.) might not also be clear cut too, especially when the evidence from history shows such to have existed for as long as we have recorded history, and with what we know about other species. Why have some head-in-the-sand attitude towards this other than because you feel some way about it or have some dogma from religion. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Not going to answer most of this wishy-washy nonsense. You stated there were no "non-binary" people (which don't exist since there are only the two biological sexes), and yet when evidence is provided to show that this isn't true you ignore it.

I read the article you provided - it just didn't prove anything.

You believe that is what should be considered "evidence"? Really?

What part of that article do you believe is the best "evidence" for there being more than two biological sexes?

I think knowing such, any reasonable person might suspect that sexual attraction (as in homosexuals etc.) might not also be clear cut too, especially when the evidence from history shows such to have existed for as long as we have recorded history, and with what we know about other species.

Why do you keep talking about homosexuality when we have been discussing the "fluidity" of gender? (Pfft )

You understand that they are not related at all - don't you?

If people can be attracted to trees - dendrophilia - why can't they be attracted to the same sex?

Heck - I even mentioned my passing attraction to cat-girls.

I have yet to claim that homosexuality does not exist - so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

Why have some head-in-the-sand attitude towards this other than because you feel some way about it or have some dogma from religion.

So - you believe that the only reasons that anyone could disagree with you on this subject is that they are either willfully ignorant or brain-washed by a religion.

It couldn't be that they interpret data differently or don't see the correlations you wish were there.

They couldn't just disagree because they have eyes that see reality for what it is. But you don't want them to believe their "lying eyes" - do you?

I have yet to see any evidence that there are more than two sexes or genders - that article of yours included.

It just doesn't make sense.

Extraordinary claims need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence - if they are to be believed.

I don't feel like anything you - or anyone else for that matter - have shared anything that successfully backs up the claim that there are more than two sexes or genders.

There is no substance in what you say.

It may not make sense to you - but you're the the one brainwashed by political hacks posing as scientists - so doesn't it make sense that it wouldn't make sense to you?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I read the article you provided - it just didn't prove anything.

You believe that is what should be considered "evidence"? Really?

What part of that article do you believe is the best "evidence" for there being more than two biological sexes?

Why do you keep talking about homosexuality when we have been discussing the "fluidity" of gender? (Pfft )

You understand that they are not related at all - don't you?

If people can be attracted to trees - dendrophilia - why can't they be attracted to the same sex?

Heck - I even mentioned my passing attraction to cat-girls.

I have yet to claim that homosexuality does not exist - so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

So - you believe that the only reasons that anyone could disagree with you on this subject is that they are either willfully ignorant or brain-washed by a religion.

It couldn't be that they interpret data differently or don't see the correlations you wish were there.

They couldn't just disagree because they have eyes that see reality for what it is. But you don't want them to believe their "lying eyes" - do you?

I have yet to see any evidence that there are more than two sexes or genders - that article of yours included.

Extraordinary claims need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence - if they are to be believed.

I don't feel like anything you - or anyone else for that matter - have shared anything that successfully backs up the claim that there are more than two sexes or genders.

There is no substance in what you say.

It may not make sense to you - but you're the the one brainwashed by political hacks posing as scientists - so doesn't it make sense that it wouldn't make sense to you?

You were stating there is simply a binary result - either male or female, but the article shows this not to be the case for all. Nature, or whatever one likes to call what we inherit from our parents, isn't so precise apparently, hence the result that many don't have all the attributes of either male or female. They can be some intermediate state, as to biology and other factors. Hence you are wrong in claiming just the binary exists.

I am suggesting that the same thing could occur, and most likely does, with regards sexual attraction - often allied to testosterone levels possibly. And history seems to support this, given that homosexuality is so common in most parts of the world and over time. And why, because nature doesn't apparently work like this - to produce binary things. We have mutations and/or errors because nature often doesn't perform correctly, and possibly allied to the emergence of sex in the first place, when males and female genes determine the product.

I am not saying that homosexuality is necessarily only produced by such either, in that it might occur for other reasons too, but for whatever reasons it occurs it seems to be more natural even if such doesn't feel natural to so many. Allowing those who are homosexual to live their lives as they would want without any condemnation seems to be the most sensible thing to me rather than anything else, given that it harms no others. I've seen the change in attitudes over several decades here in the UK and life is a lot better and more relaxed because of such. Just stop thinking about the issue - not your problem.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. because nature often doesn't perform correctly, ..

If nature performed correctly, we would still be microbes. Change is essential. Change is eternal.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You were stating there is simply a binary result - either male or female, but the article shows this not to be the case for all.

I asked you to point out what you believe is the most convincing evidence for this claim from the article.

Because I saw nothing that supports this claim.

Nature, or whatever one likes to call what we inherit from our parents, isn't so precise apparently, hence the result that many don't have all the attributes of either male or female.

What are the "attributes" of either sex?

If a man has a micro-penis - is he "less" of a man than other men?

Are men with large penises "more" of a man than other men?

If a woman has small breasts - is she "less" of a woman than other women?

Are women with large breasts "more" of a woman than other women?

What "attributes" are you referring to and why should someone lacking one or more of them change everything we know about mammalian biology?

They can be some intermediate state, as to biology and other factors.

To be clear - biology is the only "factor" that matters in determining biological sex.

Hence you are wrong in claiming just the binary exists.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

I am suggesting that the same thing could occur, and most likely does, with regards sexual attraction - often allied to testosterone levels possibly.

"often allied to testosterone levels possibly"?

Is this your standard for what is or is not "evidence"?

And history seems to support this, given that homosexuality is so common in most parts of the world and over time. And why, because nature doesn't apparently work like this - to produce binary things.

Homosexuality does not affect the truth that there are only two biological sexes - it has nothing to do with it.

Homosexuals aren't attracted to some third non-existent sex - but the same-sex. One of the two. Only two.

We have mutations and/or errors because nature often doesn't perform correctly, and possibly allied to the emergence of sex in the first place, when males and female genes determine the product.

Which brings me back to my example of the man with nine toes.

We know and teach that human beings have ten toes - right?

Yet - there are sometimes those who are born with more or fewer - does that mean we should throw out what we know about human anatomy? That human beings have ten toes?

The aberrations - or "mutations and/or errors" - do not set the rule - the standard. They are the outliers.

Someone not having "all the attributes" of their sex - whatever that means - does not create a new biological sex - it just means that they are a man or woman with a "mutation and/or error".

Just like the none-toed man is still a human male - and we know and teach that human beings have ten toes.

I am not saying that homosexuality is necessarily only produced by such either, in that it might occur for other reasons too, but for whatever reasons it occurs it seems to be more natural even if such doesn't feel natural to so many.

We have no idea what causes same-sex attraction.

From a purely biological stand-point - homosexuality is not natural - because it ignores the form and function of the sexes reproductive organs.

Allowing those who are homosexual to live their lives as they would want without any condemnation seems to be the most sensible thing to me rather than anything else, given that it harms no others.

Most people in the States feel the same way - but then we had homosexual couples demanding that those opposed to their lifestyle and union be forced to participate in their same-sex weddings.

It led to people having their character's assassinated and losing their livelihoods.

In my opinion - embracing homosexuality as a society is a marker for when a civilization begins to crumble.

I've seen the change in attitudes over several decades here in the UK and life is a lot better and more relaxed because of such.

Neat.

Just stop thinking about the issue - not your problem.

No - it is my problem - because schools are teaching impressionable children that there are infinite genders and anyone can be any of them.

Not to mention that homosexuality should be considered no different than heterosexuality.

Here in the States - we have activists posing as teachers and mentors of children - force feeding them their version of morality and values rather than just the curriculum.

We should not be confusing our children with easily debunked lies and nonsense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I asked you to point out what you believe is the most convincing evidence for this claim from the article.

Because I saw nothing that supports this claim.

What are the "attributes" of either sex?

If a man has a micro-penis - is he "less" of a man than other men?

Are men with large penises "more" of a man than other men?

If a woman has small breasts - is she "less" of a woman than other women?

Are women with large breasts "more" of a woman than other women?

What "attributes" are you referring to and why should someone lacking one or more of them change everything we know about mammalian biology?

To be clear - biology is the only "factor" that matters in determining biological sex.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

"often allied to testosterone levels possibly"?

Is this your standard for what is or is not "evidence"?

Homosexuality does not affect the truth that there are only two biological sexes - it has nothing to do with it.

Homosexuals aren't attracted to some third non-existent sex - but the same-sex. One of the two. Only two.

Which brings me back to my example of the man with nine toes.

We know and teach that human beings have ten toes - right?

Yet - there are sometimes those who are born with more or fewer - does that mean we should throw out what we know about human anatomy? That human beings have ten toes?

The aberrations - or "mutations and/or errors" - do not set the rule - the standard. They are the outliers.

Someone not having "all the attributes" of their sex - whatever that means - does not create a new biological sex - it just means that they are a man or woman with a "mutation and/or error".

Just like the none-toed man is still a human male - and we know and teach that human beings have ten toes.

We have no idea what causes same-sex attraction.

From a purely biological stand-point - homosexuality is not natural - because it ignores the form and function of the sexes reproductive organs.

Most people in the States feel the same way - but then we had homosexual couples demanding that those opposed to their lifestyle and union be forced to participate in their same-sex weddings.

It led to people having their character's assassinated and losing their livelihoods.

In my opinion - embracing homosexuality as a society is a marker for when a civilization begins to crumble.

Neat.

No - it is my problem - because schools are teaching impressionable children that there are infinite genders and anyone can be any of them.

Not to mention that homosexuality should be considered no different than heterosexuality.

Here in the States - we have activists posing as teachers and mentors of children - force feeding them their version of morality and values rather than just the curriculum.

We should not be confusing our children with easily debunked lies and nonsense.

I'm not wasting time with this tosh - since you can't accept that errors/mistakes are made and we often don't get binary anything. You are on the wrong side of history. Go research mind blocks and why you need to relax your grip on these beliefs and get educated instead so as to realise you are simply wrong on this matter. You are either reactionary to this issue or have religious beliefs to apparently back you up even when these are just dumb and of their time.

And if you feel so strongly about this issue then start another thread, where I'm sure you will get those more interested to respond, when I have no particular interest either way or anything to gain.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I'm not wasting time with this tosh - since you can't accept that errors/mistakes are made and we often don't get binary anything. You are on the wrong side of history. Go research mind blocks and why you need to relax your grip on these beliefs and get educated instead so as to realise you are simply wrong on this matter. You are either reactionary to this issue or have religious beliefs to apparently back you up even when these are just dumb and of their time.

And if you feel so strongly about this issue then start another thread, where I'm sure you will get those more interested to respond, when I have no particular interest either way or anything to gain.

You can't even point out - from your own article - what you felt was the most compelling evidence.

Science is on my side.

 

[Watchmen]

I asked you to point out what you believe is the most convincing evidence for this claim from the article.

Because I saw nothing that supports this claim.

What are the "attributes" of either sex?

If a man has a micro-penis - is he "less" of a man than other men?

Are men with large penises "more" of a man than other men?

If a woman has small breasts - is she "less" of a woman than other women?

Are women with large breasts "more" of a woman than other women?

What "attributes" are you referring to and why should someone lacking one or more of them change everything we know about mammalian biology?

To be clear - biology is the only "factor" that matters in determining biological sex.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

"often allied to testosterone levels possibly"?

Is this your standard for what is or is not "evidence"?

Homosexuality does not affect the truth that there are only two biological sexes - it has nothing to do with it.

Homosexuals aren't attracted to some third non-existent sex - but the same-sex. One of the two. Only two.

Which brings me back to my example of the man with nine toes.

We know and teach that human beings have ten toes - right?

Yet - there are sometimes those who are born with more or fewer - does that mean we should throw out what we know about human anatomy? That human beings have ten toes?

The aberrations - or "mutations and/or errors" - do not set the rule - the standard. They are the outliers.

Someone not having "all the attributes" of their sex - whatever that means - does not create a new biological sex - it just means that they are a man or woman with a "mutation and/or error".

Just like the none-toed man is still a human male - and we know and teach that human beings have ten toes.

We have no idea what causes same-sex attraction.

From a purely biological stand-point - homosexuality is not natural - because it ignores the form and function of the sexes reproductive organs.

Most people in the States feel the same way - but then we had homosexual couples demanding that those opposed to their lifestyle and union be forced to participate in their same-sex weddings.

It led to people having their character's assassinated and losing their livelihoods.

In my opinion - embracing homosexuality as a society is a marker for when a civilization begins to crumble.

Neat.

No - it is my problem - because schools are teaching impressionable children that there are infinite genders and anyone can be any of them.

Not to mention that homosexuality should be considered no different than heterosexuality.

Here in the States - we have activists posing as teachers and mentors of children - force feeding them their version of morality and values rather than just the curriculum.

We should not be confusing our children with easily debunked lies and nonsense.

A BYU biology professor circa 1999 disagrees with you. Chew on that for awhile.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You can't even point out - from your own article - what you felt was the most compelling evidence.

Science is on my side.

I'm not wasting any more time on this. You can't even accept basic knowledge found easily - as I did. Science is on you side?