Some people are just born stupid

[Synthetic Aesthetic? No.10719784]

and gullible with no interesting personality with low self image which I think translates to fags sucking dick in gay pride parades. They want attention since they aren't exceptional at anything.

[Anonymous No.10719789]

>posts some shitty screenshot of a blog post from 2016 instead of the actual study
KYS

[Anonymous No.10719793]

>>10719784
Link to article ?
Might be an interesting read.

[Prof Sai No.10719801]

>>10719784

You would have to BE GAY in order to think that anyone could choose to be gay.

[Anonymous No.10719807]

>>10719784
So gay conversion therapy works?

[Anonymous No.10719811]

>>10719784

That would explain why so many nazis are fags.

[Anonymous No.10719820]

>>10719784
This is a science board. Please back up your statements with statistics and facts.

[Anonymous No.10719828]

>>10719820
> Still entertaining the idea that the Dark Ages were an era of decline and stagnation.
Brainlet detected!

[Anonymous No.10719831]

>>10719828
oh all possible replies that was probably the dumbest one

[Synthetic Aesthetic? No.10719853]

>>10719793
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR2tfPWPZt48I3SR1WP7SPdkFndpu1p8BKNzZTEsBszvkeDw4SbE-t3pVbg

>>10719807
looks like that's a yes.

>>10719820
"Hi im a raging faggot and I want to be coddled, if you disagree with me you need evidence that I can pretend to pick apart" im not gonna entertain it since you'll just shout down anything on the basis it's "nazi propaganda". Accept it or don't.

[Anonymous No.10719858]

>>10719784
Homosexuality is caused by circumcision, lack of a father, hormone disrupting food, and vaccination.

Cutting on a man's peepee gives him unconquerable castration anxiety. Surprise!

[Anonymous No.10719868]

>>10719858
I'm uncircumcised, my parents are still together, was raised primarily on locally grown organic food and wasn't vaccinated until I was 18, and I'm still gay as hell.

[Anonymous No.10719870]

>>10719858
I'm a little gay.. but I lost my father at a young age

[Anonymous No.10719875]

>>10719853
>The new Atlantis
>not peer reviewed
Not science or math fuck off

[Anonymous No.10719878]

>>10719870
>>10719868
Interesting.

[Anonymous No.10719882]

>>10719868
Is there any possibility you were sexually abused as a child? Or psychosexual boundaries were not respected.

[Anonymous No.10719891]

>>10719882
Nah my parents were good Christians and I was homeschooled. Zero abuse or sexual contact growing up.

[Anonymous No.10719895]

>>10719820
>christaifnity is the only religion on earf

[Anonymous No.10719901]

>>10719801
thats the most retarded thing ive ever read

[Anonymous No.10719920]

>>10719784
>>10719784
>looks like that's a yes.
No. There is zero evidence that conversion therapy works. All the article really said is that there is no evidence that being gay is genetic which no shit we already knew. In fact, even if you were to completely surrender the ground that it is not possible to be "born" gay and it is entirely a result of early childhood environment, that would still not imply that conversion therapy would work. There is no convincing evidence that any orientation or paraphilia, even ones that could be said to be a product of environment, can be changed in the long term.
>Male sexual gender orientation is usually viewed as stable over time and situations, though it is not required as part of the definition (and does not appear to correct for female sexual gender orientation) (see Diamond,2008). Efforts to change male sexual gender orientation have consistently failed; though temporary changes in sexual arousal can occur through behavioral conditioning techniques, probably by increasing voluntary control over sexual arousal (though see Conrade & Wincze, 1976), there is no convincing evidence that sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, arousal, and behavior change in the long-term (though there is ongoing debate about ‘‘reorientation’’ or ‘‘conversion’’ therapies to change homosexual to heterosexual orientation; see Beckstead, submitted; Drescher & Zucker, 2006). Focusing on heterosexuality, there is no evidence that heterosexual individuals change their orientation over time, such that a man with an extensive history of sexual interactions involving women and a long-term marriage subsequently becomes sexually (or romantically) attracted to another man.
Seto, M. C. (2012). Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?
(For reference, the two studies regarding the "ongoing debate" have no definitive conclusion either because there is little to no evidence that it works)

[Anonymous No.10719925]

>>10719831
You don't get it. You're an idiot.

[Synthetic Aesthetic? No.10719942]

>>10719875
"I don't agree, fuck off"

>>10719920
"Hewoo OwO you can't chwange me my homo-uwu-sexuality is apwart of me." we rehabilitate crazy people all the time. Just because you suck cocks and criminals shoot glocks doesn't mean you're any different in having your psyche changed. Also all the dates you listed are ancient news so if you're gonna square up nigger then get something to back your claim that isn't ancient history. 2012 is so far away and so much has changed it's damn near a decade.

[Anonymous No.10719954]

Hi, friend! /sci/ and /pol/ are different boards! hehe

No evidence people are born gay ≠ people are not born gay.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I hope you have a nice stay on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.10719956]

>>10719784
>some people are just born stupid and gullible with no interesting personality with low self image

Citation needed.

>which I think translates to fags sucking dick in gay pride parades.

Good for you. Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.10719959]

>>10719942
>"I don't agree, fuck off"

Not what he said. He said your source wasn’t a good one since it isn’t a scientific journal or subject to peer-review.
If you want to be taken seriously, cite a good source.

[Anonymous No.10719962]

>>10719784
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.10719963]

>>10719942
without peer review it's literally just an OP ED so not science or math therefore not relevant to the board.

[Anonymous No.10719964]

>>10719956
look at how many trans people suddenly exist, it's a trend and people hop on to feign a personality. Evident by many I bet even including you fronting their sexuality as a personality trait. Go back to riddit you normie I bet someone on r/science wants your opinion on the after effects of soilent.

[Anonymous No.10719966]

>>10719964
>look at how many trans people suddenly exist, it's a trend and people hop on to feign a personality.
citation needed

[Anonymous No.10719969]

>>10719964
>look at how many trans people suddenly exist, it's a trend and people hop on to feign a personality.

Citation needed.

>Evident by many I bet even including you fronting their sexuality as a personality trait.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.10719974]

>>10719969

[Anonymous No.10719975]

>>10719959
>>10719956
>>10719963

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/

will you kindly commit suicide now? Cause getting a second source while you sit at 0 still is just tiresome.

[Anonymous No.10719977]

>>10719974
This data has no relevance to any claims discussed. Please delete your post to conserve the thread’s lifespan.

[Anonymous No.10719982]

>>10719977
"You're wrong because it made me upset" lets get those numbers up to 100, yall are obnoxious and stupid.

[Anonymous No.10719985]

>>10719975
>http://www.mygenes.co.nz/

This is about homosexuality, and the claim that sexuality is fluid isn’t one I disagree with.

It’s not about >>10719969

So this reply makes no sense as a reply to me or the other anon.

[Anonymous No.10719987]

>>10719975
>some random book
you really don't get how this works do you?

[Anonymous No.10719989]

>>10719982
I never said you were wrong, actually.
I said the data was irrelevant, and it is, because suicide rates aren’t the topic.
Please continue to lie and embarrass yourself further.

[Anonymous No.10719997]

>>10719820
see >>10719895

[Anonymous No.10720006]

>>10719987
oh look im right, all you did was just whine about sources, do I have to command God himself to confirm my statement? Cause it looks like I will have to so you stop crying.

[Anonymous No.10720011]

>>10720006
You have to cite some papers in actual journals.

[Anonymous No.10720015]

>>10720006
I would settle for any peer reviewed scientific work actually, if you can get god to do it that would be ok too

[Anonymous No.10720023]

>>10720006
Here I'll post a bunch of shitty sources claiming the opposite let me know what you think.
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/
>https://www.sciencenews.org/article/genetics-dna-homosexuality-gay-orientation-attractiveness-straight
>https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/giant-study-links-dna-variants-same-sex-behavior
I apologize if any of these links contain actual citations

[Anonymous No.10720024]

>>10719942
>"Hewoo OwO you can't chwange me my homo-uwu-sexuality is apwart of me." we rehabilitate crazy people all the time. Just because you suck cocks and criminals shoot glocks doesn't mean you're any different in having your psyche changed.
We rehabilitate crazy people all the time, but that does not mean we are capable of rehabilitating every single mental issue that comes up. Theoretically you can change anything about a person with an advanced enough understanding of the mind and advanced enough neurosurgery/electro therapy, but that means jack shit until you can prove its possible with what we have available now.
>Also all the dates you listed are ancient news so if you're gonna square up nigger then get something to back your claim that isn't ancient history. 2012 is so far away and so much has changed it's damn near a decade.
Can find the same shit in books from 2018. This new study changes nothing. It doesn't even address the issue directly. There have been zero notable changes in regards to that question between 2012 and now that I can think of that would justify your attempt to dismiss it.
>Changes in sexual arousal can be made using behavioural conditioning techniques, but follow-up studies have not shown evidence that this change generalizes outside the laboratory or persists over the longer-term.
Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: theory, assessment, and intervention (Second Edition).
Using pedos as an example because we've tried shocking, beating, coddling and castrating them and the overall success rate for actually curing pedophilia is still fucking 0%. Not a single independent verifiable case of it being actually changed, and don't give me that Federoff bullhsit. Same goes for gays. You think ohhhhh we just didn't twy hawd enough uWu?

[Anonymous No.10720030]

>>10720011
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/12/despite-what-you-may-have-read-theres-no-gay-gene/

[Anonymous No.10720034]

>>10719820
You have to over the age of 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.10720037]

>>10720006
Okay.

>>10718419
>>>/x/22821674

Don't summon me again, faggot.

[Anonymous No.10720045]

>>10720030
>

Scientists presenting at the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Genetics announced the discovery of a gene-based algorithm that could predict male homosexuality with 70 percent accuracy. It’s the first time a gene-based model has been used to predict sexual orientation, giving credence to the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis.
cool that's the only thing relevant in the blog post the rest is just personal opinion

[Anonymous No.10720049]

>>10719820
>>10719831
It’s true. Anyone who uses the term “dark ages” unironically this way is just literally revealing how ignorant they are of real history.
>Most modern historians do not use the term "dark ages", preferring terms such as Early Middle Ages. But when used by some historians today, the term "Dark Ages" is meant to describe the economic, political, and cultural problems of the era.[37][38] For others, the term Dark Ages is intended to be neutral, expressing the idea that the events of the period seem 'dark' to us because of the paucity of the historical record.[11]
>However, from the later 20th century onwards, other historians became critical even of this nonjudgmental use of the term, for two main reasons.[11] Firstly, it is questionable whether it is ever possible to use the term in a neutral way: scholars may intend this, but ordinary readers may not understand it so. Secondly, 20th-century scholarship had increased understanding of the history and culture of the period,[45] to such an extent that it is no longer really 'dark' to us.[11] To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians now avoid it altogether.[46][47]
Not to mention the Church was basically the only intellectual and educational institution that existed at the time, conserving and extending the work of the ancients, trying to protect this scholarly work from marauding warlords and bandits.

[Anonymous No.10720050]

>>10720030
This is about homosexuality, and again, has no relevance to the following posts made by me.

>>10719956

>>10719969

[Anonymous No.10720057]

>>10720024
I think if it had absolutely no ability to convert people the militant LGBT community wouldn't froth at the mouth at it's mention. It'd be a passing thought not 5 pages of search results that are all hinged on attacking it. If it doesn't poses no threat to you sucking dick.

>Also all the dates you listed are ancient news so if you're gonna square up nigger then get something to back your claim that isn't ancient history. 2012 is so far away and so much has changed it's damn near a decade.

You're literally just saying that to try and keep your evidence relevant, hell you don't even link it you just swiped it off buzzfeed or huffpost. If your evidence is older than you and ongoing experimentation and studies have been posted theres no reason to use that.

Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: theory, assessment, and intervention (Second Edition).
Using pedos as an example because we've tried shocking, beating, coddling and castrating them and the overall success rate for actually curing pedophilia is still fucking 0%. Not a single independent verifiable case of it being actually changed, and don't give me that Federoff bullhsit. Same goes for gays. You think ohhhhh we just didn't twy hawd enough uWu?

okay ridditor we get it you're mad but if you're gonna use your be a smug fag then at least post your evidence in a way I can access it instead of going by word of mouth.

[Anonymous No.10720064]

>>10720057
he gave you the fucking citation what more could you possibly need?

[Anonymous No.10720070]

>>10720030
Congratulations. You're the best at failing to cite credible sources in a place full of flat-earthers.

[Anonymous No.10720072]

>>10719820
i love this bait
the easiest way to consider the ancient societies from a scientific standpoint is by looking at their strengths. the egyptians and the arabians were absolute masters of mathematics. but this didn't lead to the greeks becoming the absolute masters of social discourse and civil sciences. this graph is as unscientific as you can get. rome shouldn't even be on this graph. they weren't scientists, they were conquerors.

now we get to christianity. until this point the ideas and concepts being worked with by the greeks and arabians were very basic (and to note: the arabians had stopped their contribution entirely by this point, and would never contribute to science again thanks to the rise of moham). christianity was the first pan-religion that adapted and allowed for freedoms that until that point was unheard of within the scope of dogma. christianity bridged the pantheon quasi-religions of the greeks and romans with the too-strict work ethic of the jewish-gypsy theocracy and created a substructure that was intensely progressive for the time in one key aspect: education. the 'christian' 'dark ages' were not dark ages. they were a period of broadening education, something vitally important to the progress of science, and something that was absolutely unheard of before this point.

the renaissance would not have been the explosion it was without the educational infrastructure provided by the church's base-level qol improvements and the spread of basic knowledge. i assume many people, raised in the modern era with easy, even compulsory basic education have no understanding of how a lack of education would have stopped any renaissance dead in its tracks. a certain modern romanticism causes the over-educated to take for granted the degree to which education and full stomachs allows them to consider a multitude of abstract things, and how much the basic education they've had allows them to formulate compounded abstractions of thoughts.

[Anonymous No.10720082]

>>10720072
I feel like the graph would make much more sense if it charted general civic infrastructure and development, but if it did, China would be the most important civilization on the chart for most of it.

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720087]

>>10720024
>We rehabilitate crazy people all the time, but that does not mean we are capable of rehabilitating every single mental issue that comes up. Theoretically you can change anything about a person with an advanced enough understanding of the mind and advanced enough neurosurgery/electro therapy, but that means jack shit until you can prove its possible with what we have available now.

that's speculation, since we don't have to cure all illnesses to have the ability to change homosexuality.

>Can find the same shit in books from 2018. This new study changes nothing. It doesn't even address the issue directly. There have been zero notable changes in regards to that question between 2012 and now that I can think of that would justify your attempt to dismiss it.

Link it cause you being obviously gay would pose a threat to bias. Especially since gays are known for being militant. It's morally bankrupt and not to mention needless and stupid to use only old stuff. we did a lot since 2012, like commercially viable internet was widespread and electric cars were a reality.

>Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: theory, assessment, and intervention (Second Edition).
Using pedos as an example because we've tried shocking, beating, coddling and castrating them and the overall success rate for actually curing pedophilia is still fucking 0%. Not a single independent verifiable case of it being actually changed, and don't give me that Federoff bullhsit. Same goes for gays. You think ohhhhh we just didn't twy hawd enough uWu?

Ridditor is angry. Being smug won't change the fact everyone knows you're mad. Lastly we have changed pedophiles and not all of them are John Wayne Gacey, your average sodomite can be converted quite easily even with all of the propaganda drilled into their brain. So I don't care about your study when it says 0% which means none and factually it's worked if even 1 pedo has changed it debunks your assertion.

[Anonymous No.10720097]

>>10720034
There is a strong negative correlation between education and religiosity. The Bible with all its scientific and historical contradictions cannot coexist with an educated populace.

[Anonymous No.10720098]

>>10719820
That is some Stargate-tier shit.

[Anonymous No.10720112]

>>10720087
>. Lastly we have changed pedophiles and not all of them are John Wayne Gacey, your average sodomite can be converted quite easily even with all of the propaganda drilled into their brain. So I don't care about your study when it says 0% which means none and factually it's worked if even 1 pedo has changed it debunks your assertion.
Please provide evidence for this assertion. >>10720087
was kind enough to provide a published scientific study I'm sure you can do the same.

[Anonymous No.10720126]

>>10720097
the word you're looking for is dogmatic thought, not 'religiosity.' the bible was the world's most efficient self-help book ever written. it holds the roots to the social behaviors that have brought us this far. simply because some people hold tightly to CORRELATION between the gifts they have accrued in life due to living a christian way, and the dogmatic hocus-pocus of taught alongside it, doesn't mean you can say that the bible should be thrown away. your brand of progressive thought is more akin to a forest fire than anything else. you would destroy the foundation that has gotten us this far because some of its side-effects bother you, and worse you attempt to prove your claims with science instead of allowing science to lead you to your claims. a scientist who tries to argue that all our progress has been in spite of the christian church, rather than due to it is the most pathetic thing imaginable.

[Anonymous No.10720137]

>>10720126
There's nothing more annoying than some faggot who just ignores all the stupid contradictory shit in the Bible because "it has valuable lessons in it". If you want to teach good lessons to children, then teach them, you don't need to LARP and pretend to worship a god you know doesn't exist. The western world is a more moral place than we have ever seen before in human history, and yet religion is at an all time low in the west.

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720153]

>>10720137
actually it's bad, half naked men parade the street and expose themselves to kids in the name of progress. It's degeneracy and we were peak morality in 1950.

[Anonymous No.10720154]

>>10720137
>you know doesn't exist
epic 12 year old poster

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720157]

>>10720070
2 sources and you have none, you're literally the one who conceded in this debate since you deflected away from it. I hope treatment resistant AIDs kills you.

[Anonymous No.10720162]

>>10720072
>the arabians had stopped their contribution entirely by this point, and would never contribute to science again thanks to the rise of moham
You mean Al-Ghazali?

[Anonymous No.10720163]

>>10720153
We have equal rights for all races, genders, and sexualities, we have freedom of religion, we're far less xenophobic than we've ever been before, we have freedom of speech and representation in government, the population is more education and prosperous than it has ever been before in history, and we are at war far less and the wars we do have aren't as devastating. Yes, we have achieved a better and more moral civilization than the Christians ever did.
>>10720154
If there's a god then it is not the Christian god. There are so many Biblical contradictions that I shouldn't even have to list them off.

[Anonymous No.10720167]

>>10720097
>>10720137
Anime has rotten your brain.

[Anonymous No.10720169]

>>10720163
yeah bro none of those changes came out of christians for sure dude.

Feel free to link whatever infographic on contradictions you saved off reddit though, Im sure it will make you feel enlightened. Even the halfwits on /lit/ could give a better discussion on the evolution of biblical canon.

[Anonymous No.10720172]

>>10720157
>2 sources
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10720174]

>>10720163
>we have achieved a better and more moral civilization than the Christians ever did
Hmm... when did this extinction of these Christians occur?

[Anonymous No.10720175]

you mean a causal biological mechanism hasnt been discovered for a complex behavioral phenotype? im so shocked

[Anonymous No.10720180]

>>10720087
>since we don't have to cure all illnesses to have the ability to change homosexuality.
All I can do is repeat that the theoretical ability to change homosexuality is meaningless without a proven practical way to change homosexuality.
>Link it
I am using a physical copy. You can probably find an online version on libgen or somewhere else.
>It's morally bankrupt and not to mention needless and stupid to use only old stuff. we did a lot since 2012, like commercially viable internet was widespread and electric cars were a reality.
Not every field moves at the same pace. It would be ludicrous to discount all research before a given year without any strong basis for believing that the research is outdated, which is not the case here.
>Lastly we have changed pedophiles
Have we? Like I said, I am not aware of a single independently verifiable case of this happening.

[Anonymous No.10720186]

>>10720174
what is this a survey of Alabama?

[Anonymous No.10720189]

>>10720172
>>10720023

[Anonymous No.10720190]

>>10720169
>yeah bro none of those changes came out of christians for sure dude.
They've been actively fighting them for centuries. Divine right of kings opposing democracy, stuff like the Inquisition trampling over basic human rights, opposing scientific knowledge from men such as Galileo and Darwin, campaigning against equal rights for gays and women, even now they actively oppose reproductive rights for women.

As for contradictions, well, to start off with:
>the universe was not created in 7 days
>you can't even have a "day" if there's no sunset
>the universe was not covered in water before the big bang
>Adam and Eve could not have breeded all of humanity without incest wiping out the species
>we have no indication that there was ever a global flood
>we have no record of there ever being a tower of Babylon
>we have no proof that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt
>the Earth is not a circle
>a supposedly omnipotent god couldn't defeat iron chariots
>all the supposed "miracles" that happened during and after the Bible all conveniently happened before the age of widespread cameras

[Anonymous No.10720195]

>>10720174
>>10720186
that looks too high but according to Pew it's just over 70 percent

[Anonymous No.10720196]

>>10720190
uuuh, you aren't supposed to say that bro, just read the bits that validates my world view.

[Anonymous No.10720197]

>>10720190
LITERALLY back to >>>/r/eddit
The fact that you even typed out the sentence "you can't even have a "day" if there's no sunset" outs you as the most disgusting psuedo-trash on this board.

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720201]

>>10720163
I never said anything about christianity, I never said religion made anything better. Hell Islam legit burned down the library of alexander the great which set us back much farther than the christians you hate so much.

If a god exists he'd be a malevolent madman with powers over reality and not complete ominipotence.

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720203]

>>10720023
>the guardian
>news site
>magazine

kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.10720204]

>>10720197
Why do you get really angry when people state simple facts? A day is nothing but a planetary rotation.

[Anonymous No.10720206]

>>10720190
Highly-religious Christians were also at the forefront of many progressive social movements such as abolitionism and pacifism, particularly the Quakers. The world isn't as black and white as you paint it to be.

[Anonymous No.10720207]

>>10720203
>Shitty sources
>Magazine

So the New Atlantis?

[Anonymous No.10720209]

>>10720204
>Uuuuh well by days the bible actually meant 14 billion years you see it's a uuuhhhh metaphor

[Anonymous No.10720215]

>>10720203
congratulations you finally get it

[Anonymous No.10720224]

>>10720126
>more akin to a forest fire
Nobody wants to be told they're the overgrowth.

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720225]

>>10720215
http://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correction-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/

I don't care about your petty lesson in sources, it's fallacious to just flagrantly attack a source just on the basis you don't agree.

[Anonymous No.10720226]

>>10720203
This is precisely what people are complaining about regarding your sources. Listen, I don't want to be a dick, but we can see that you're not an academic. That's not a problem, but if you want to cite scientific literature, you have to cite peer reviewed journals. The websites you've been linking to are not proper scientific literature.

[Anonymous No.10720229]

>>10720206
No you forgot that there was slavery in the bible so all christians supported slavery. My dumb parents dragged me to chuch every sunday but now that I'm 13 I realized christians were the real evil all along.

[Anonymous No.10720230]

>>10720190
Guess who were the first to oppose monarchy?

[Anonymous No.10720231]

>>10720225
So what you just did?
>>10720203

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720233]

>>10720226
yet you whine about sources and evidence and provided none, then ya pull out your ridditor smug attitude. You've not demonstrated anything in place of acceptable evidence or literature so why should I care what you say? You obviously browse this board since you think browsing it and watching rick and morty gives you IQ points.

so stick your patronizing attitude down your throat and choke on it.

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720237]

>>10720229
"Now that im 13" you don't even know how your own penis works and also assume morality isn't subjective. Go back to pretending to be a emo satanist kid, you probably can do that better.

[Anonymous No.10720241]

>>10720237
lol

[Anonymous No.10720243]

>>10720233
Fuck off normie. You don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.10720244]

>>10720237
Morality isnt subjective and you cant read sarcasm you stupid sperg

[Anonymous No.10720245]

>>10720230
Atheists like the Founding Fathers?

[Anonymous No.10720249]

>>10720225
Meanwhile in reality this is what Diamond actually beleives
>Much of your work explores what you call “sexual fluidity”. What does it mean?
It means that people are born with a sexual orientation and also with a degree of sexual flexibility, and they appear to work together. So there are gay people who are very fixedly gay and there are gay people who are more fluid, meaning they can experience attractions that run outside of their orientation.

[Anonymous No.10720253]

>>10720245
>american founding fathers were the first to oppose monarchy
you are quite literally not human

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720306]

>>10720243
"Ha ha you're stupid nothing you post is credible"

"why are you asking me for credible evidence? What do I look like to you? A nerd?"

literally you

[Anonymous No.10720320]

>>10720306
Why do you always have to be a faggot, OP?

[Anonymous No.10720321]

>>10720244
>Morality isnt subjective

What? Show me moral particles.

[Anonymous No.10720326]

>>10720209
The problem with the “metaphor” route is that, if so, why can’t the entire book and narrative be dismissed as metaphor?

[Anonymous No.10720328]

>>10720320
Research suggests he was born that way.

[Anonymous No.10720330]

>>10720230
Uh.....the romans who killed the last king of Rome and established the Republic? Probably people before, but that’s the first example I can think of and they were not Christian.

[Anonymous No.10720332]

>>10720023
>I apologize if any of these links contain actual citations
My keyboard is covered in drink now.

[Anonymous No.10720346]

>>10720190
>>10720206
not to mention the civil rights movement

[Anonymous No.10720349]

>>10720245
This is wrong on several different levels.
1. The Founding Fathers weren’t atheist.
2. They weren’t the first to oppose monarchy.
3. Some of the Founding Fathers were Christian.

[Anonymous No.10720351]

>>10720346
It kind of defeats your point that highly religious Christians were also at the forefront of the opposition in all these cases.

[Anonymous No.10720352]

>>10720245
>american education

[Anonymous No.10720358]

>>10720237
>>10720321
Do you think knowledge is objective? Do you think epistemic rationality is objective? Do you think conditional imperatives exist?

[Anonymous No.10720359]

Here OP give this a read it's what an actual credible source looks like
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28050743

[Anonymous No.10720362]

>>10719868
>I'm still gay as hell.

sodomite.

[Anonymous No.10720364]

>>10720351
No, because the point I was addressing was that Christians were le ebin evil while my point is literally that the world is not so black and white.

[Anonymous No.10720365]

>>10720362
Yes that is what the word means

[Anonymous No.10720366]

>>10720351
read the fucking thread

[Anonymous No.10720367]

>>10720364
it's very possible to make the claim Christianity has done more harm than good, without engaging in absolutism

[Anonymous No.10720368]

>>10720358
>Do you think knowledge is objective? Do you think epistemic rationality is objective?

No, no.

>Do you think conditional imperatives exist?

Don’t know what that means but I’m guessing no.

[Anonymous No.10720409]

>>10720153
>It's degeneracy and we were peak morality in 1950.
Yeah actively oppressing, subjugating, or killing everyone who wasnt a caucasian male or their institutions was super moral. Beating kids was super moral, conducting secret experiments on your own population was super moral, manifest destiny and neo imperialism was super moral.

Youve got to be underage.

[Anonymous No.10720416]

>>10720126
>entire point is underpinned by the assumption that christianity is the "foundation" of our achievement
Christ you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.10720419]

>>10720409
>oppressing, subjugating, or killing
>Beating kids
>conducting secret experiments
>manifest destiny and neo imperialism
Why do you have to kink-shame bruh some people just can't get off if they aren't inside a picket fence and know that somewhere outside there is an African American hanging from a tree. True oppression is not being able to oppress others.

[Anonymous No.10720420]

>>10720169
Demonstrably, they didnt. Unless you are forgetting about all those schismatics and iconoclasts that repeatedly and aggressively attacked the holy see, ultimately leading to the new testament and the christendom light that people "practice" today. Youve literally never read a single piece of historical literature in your life have you?

[Anonymous No.10720423]

>>10720409
There is nothing wrong with beating kids.

[Anonymous No.10720430]

>>10719784
you may not suck dick, but you also haven't sold as many albums as Elton John or Freddie Mercury, so maybe the 'lack of exceptionality' hypothesis has some problems

[Anonymous No.10720431]

>>10720230
Youre so dumb it physically pains me. The clergy FUCKING LOVED monarchy, they have their own monarchy for fuck sakes. The catholic church was one of the largest and longest standing power brokers for nearly 1500 years.

Reading shit like this makes me think the scientists in the plot of bio shock were right to build rapture.

[Anonymous No.10720435]

>>10720082
Right??

[Anonymous No.10720436]

>>10720245
Oh so this is how a corrupt billionaire retard with no qualifications or merit managed to become POTUS.

[Anonymous No.10720440]

>>10720420
You clearly dont even understand what the new testament is.

[Anonymous No.10720447]

>>10720430
It's not that all gay people have no personality, it's the ones who's entire persona revolves around their sexuality that OP is talking about. You know, the ones who ruin it for everyone else.
Like godamn, could you imagine if all gay people had class like Freddie? They'd be everyone's favorite. Unfortunately there are a bunch of faggots that actually get off to making people uncomfortable and here we are today instead.

[Anonymous No.10720449]

>>10720447
Honestly a whole lot of straight dudes entire persona revolves around their sexuality as well. Gays are hardly unique in that sense.

[Anonymous No.10720453]

>>10720447
>It's not that all gay people have no personality, it's the ones who's entire persona revolves around their sexuality that OP is talking about

I think both of my examples fall within the category of extremely flamboyant, public gay men

also this guy makes an astute point (>>10720449)

[Anonymous No.10720456]

>>10720447
Thats just a cop out.
Gays are literally children fucking bugspreading degenerates and their behavior should never be normalized in society. Flamboyance is just a cherry on top.

[Anonymous No.10720458]

>>10720456
No link between homosexuality and pedophilia exists

[Anonymous No.10720462]

>>10720456
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDgq-K2oYLo

[Anonymous No.10720477]

>>10720190
For most of your "contradictions" you can sum that a book teaching you about life lessons wasn't going to delve into the physics behind stars and atoms to a bunch of fishermen and shepards 4-2,000 years ago. So you know, the 7 days a metaphysical God referred to may not even be our 24 hour days.
Also incest has been doing fine for many royal families. Sure some tards are born but overall it's actually not a huge problem. It's not unreasonable to assume 2 original people would fare any worse than a mutated woman born to a clan of chimps. Unless you think of course humans may have independantly popped up in different areas of the world? But that would be racist.
Also there's plenty of evidence of a flood 12,000 years ago. Where the fuck have you been?
Also there are still miracles happening today that you can visit.

Damn, its like you want to be mad, so you nitpick at little bits with a closed and disinformed mindset. I don't believe in a god either, but my reasons are better than "I'm using modern logic, definitions, and mindset to interpret as literally as possible a book that was written 4,000 and 2,000 years ago for a completely different audience of people who loved parables and had no knowledge of a scientific method, and has been translated, annotated and abridged several times before it got to me". I'm sorry your priest sucked.

[Anonymous No.10720483]

>>10720440
Solid non argument and selective reading skills youve got there.
People not being garbage human beings and affecting change over centuries is why we have such a high moral standard right now. This behaviour wasnt and isnt unique to the roman catholic church. Ergo the RCC, as an institution, cant be responsible for the moral standard of today.

[Anonymous No.10720492]

>>10720456
Kek. C'mon, you wouldn't hate niggers either if they weren't so.. niggardly. Like if they were just straight up white people who happened to be darker, there'd be no problem. Our cultures sure would have some differences, but overall we would've gotten along fine with our productive trading partners instead of assuming these loin clothed hut builders for sale (by their own people) needed some direction in life.

[Anonymous No.10720501]

>>10720072
>the egyptians and the arabians were absolute masters of mathematics
lmao, no they weren't

[Anonymous No.10720502]

>>10720449
Right, but they're fortunate enough to be like everyone else, so everyone else isn't annoyed because they don't notice anything different.
That's kind of how society works. We weed out the different ones because they're not of our tribe and can't be trusted. You can try to break 10,000 years of societal evolution in a single generation if you want. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.10720507]

>>10720502
tip

[Anonymous No.10720513]

>>10720368
Ok, so you don’t know morality is subjective.

Now, do you believe there is such a thing as truth? Where is the truth particle?

[Anonymous No.10720514]

>>10720477
>For most of your "contradictions" you can sum that a book teaching you about life lessons wasn't going to delve into the physics behind stars and atoms to a bunch of fishermen and shepards 4-2,000 years ago.

It should have included lengthy passages on molecular biology, physics, and engineering so humans could establish fusion power plants and perform mass vaccinations, but it doesn’t because it was made up by “Fishermen and shepherds”

[Anonymous No.10720516]

>>10720409
>Beating kids was super moral
It’s actually good to use corporeal punishment in some circumstances.

[Anonymous No.10720519]

>>10720409
>neo imperialism
what did you mean by this

[Synthetic Aesthetic. No.10720520]

>>10720328
>>10720320

nothing suggest that you NPC. no evidence contradicting me, I hope you choke on a dick, not like that'd be too hard since you willingly suck them.

[Anonymous No.10720521]

>>10720431
You’re a fucking retard who spews an irrelevant red herring at every opportunity. Read the fucking conversation before you respond again, dumbass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchomachs

[Anonymous No.10720522]

>>10720502
>ooba booga that person different! me kill different person!!!!
I guess if your only objective is to have the sophistication of a cave man there's really no point even talking to you.
Also worth noting homosexuals generally weren't oppressed outside cultures dominated by Abrahamic traditions.

[Anonymous No.10720524]

>>10720520
>>10720359
hey look an actual peer reviewed scientific journal

[Anonymous No.10720525]

>>10720516
>It’s actually good to use corporeal punishment in some circumstances.
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.10720532]

>>10720513
>Ok, so you don’t know morality is subjective.

Yes I do. Something that is “objective” exists independent of any observer, so neither rationality nor morals are “objective”. Neither can there be any subjective truth value to moral claims without arbitarily accepting some axiom like utilitarianism.

>Now, do you believe there is such a thing as truth?

Yes, it exists as something subjective, meaning it ceases to be if observers cease to be.

[Anonymous No.10720534]

>>10720514
>fedora telling god how he should write his book on the levantine shepherding forum known as 4chab

[Anonymous No.10720537]

>>10720534
God didn’t write it. A bunch of hairy Jew guys in a desert did after having a gander at their Babylonian captor’s mythology and deciding to steal some of it.

[Anonymous No.10720539]

>>10720532
Then so do I know morality is objective.

[Anonymous No.10720542]

>>10720532
>Yes I do.
no, that’s just your opinion. you’re not objectively correct.

[Anonymous No.10720544]

>>10720539
>Then so do I know morality is objective

Can I see the morality particle then, please?

[Anonymous No.10720547]

>>10720532
Neither can there be any subjective truth value to epistemic claims without arbitarily accepting some axiom like induction.

[Anonymous No.10720548]

>>10720542
>no, that’s just your opinion.

Nope. It is a true statement, unless they found a morality particle in the LHC and didn’t tell anyone.

>you’re not objectively correct.

Nothing can be both “objective” and “correct”. That’s meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10720549]

>>10720547
>Neither can there be any subjective truth value to epistemic claims without arbitarily accepting some axiom like induction.

Now you’re cooking with gas.

[Anonymous No.10720556]

>>10720321
>>10720544
Can I see the justification particle then, please?
Can I see the induction particle then, please?
Can I see the truth particle then, please?
Can I see the time particle then, please?
Can I see the universe particle then, please?
Can I see the number two particle then, please?
Can I see the bigness particle then, please?
Can I see the temperature particle then, please?
Can I see the entropy particle then, please?

Not everything that exists is a fucking particle you braindead mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.10720557]

>>10720326
because not every book in the bible (which is really a collection of books) is alike in its content, style, origin, and intended interpretation (which is the work of hermeneutics)

[Anonymous No.10720564]

>>10720537
you got a problem against hair, buddy?

and what “stealing” are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10720565]

>>10720548
It is likewise a true statement that some things are moral and others are not.
>Nothing can be both “objective” and “correct”. That’s meaningless.
kek the absolute state

[Anonymous No.10720567]

>>10720556
>Not everything that exists is a fucking particle
So is it a wave then?

[Anonymous No.10720568]

>>10720556
That’s right, but everything that exists objectively manifests as a particle, field, manifold, or other physical term.

[Anonymous No.10720569]

>>10720565
>It is likewise a true statement that some things are moral and others are not.

In your subjective view, yes. In mine, different things are defined as moral and others not as moral.

[Anonymous No.10720572]

>>10720568
>everything that exists objectively manifests as a particle, field, manifold, or other physical term
So does morality.

[Anonymous No.10720576]

>>10720564
>you got a problem against hair, buddy?

It’s an accurate description. You ever see an Arabic dude naked?

>and what “stealing” are you talking about?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1

[Anonymous No.10720577]

>>10720569
Only in your subjective view are you right. In mine and every other rational person’s, you’re wrong.

[Anonymous No.10720578]

>>10720572
Okay, where? Where’s the morality field, particle, manifold, virtual particle, quasi particle, etc?

[Anonymous No.10720580]

>>10720577
>Only in your subjective view are you right.

Nope. I share multiple moral convictions with other people.

>In mine and every other rational person’s, you’re wrong.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.10720582]

>>10719820
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.10720586]

>>10720576
>However, in a deeper analysis (Heidel 1951) notes many differences, including polytheism vs. monotheism, and personification of forces or properties in the Babylonian myth vs. imperative creation by god in the biblical stories; permanence of matter vs. creation out of nothing; and the lack of any real parallel for the extended description of Marduk's battles with monsters.

[Anonymous No.10720588]

>>10720586
He didn't say they copied the whole thing just a bunch of it.

[Anonymous No.10720591]

>>10720578
Okay, where? Where’s the field, particle, manifold, virtual particle, quasi particle, etc of justification, induction, knowledge, truth, time, universe, twoness, bigness, temperature, and entropy, then?

[Anonymous No.10720592]

>>10719793
>>10719853
Counterargument:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-new-atlantis-article_b_58d5242ee4b0f633072b36a4

[Anonymous No.10720596]

>>10720580
Only in your subjective view do you share multiple moral convictions with other people. In mine and every other rational person’s, you do not share such convictions with them.

[Anonymous No.10720601]

>>10720588
>they copied a bunch of it
proof?

[Anonymous No.10720608]

>>10720591
>justification, induction, knowledge, truth

Not objective so they lack physical manifestation.

>time, universe

Manifold

>twoness, bigness,

Subjective

>temperature

Energy which manifests as photons when moving between material

>and entropy

Consists of thermodynamic exchanges

[Anonymous No.10720611]

>>10720580
>I share multiple moral convictions with other people.
how do you know that? where’s this knowledge particle?

[Anonymous No.10720616]

>>10720608
>Not objective so they lack physical manifestation.
Your claim is not objective so it lacks physical manifestation.
>time, universe = manifold
brainlet.jpeg
>Energy which manifests as photons when moving between material
Ok you’re actually a brainlet who doesn’t even know what temperature is.
>Consists of thermodynamic exchanges
Jesus christ, stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.10720620]

>>10720601
The rehashed flood myth, the seven days of creation, and the fact that Yahweh was originally a polytheistic deity and existed amongst others like Asherah?

[Anonymous No.10720623]

>>10720611
>how do you know that?

Words.

[Anonymous No.10720624]

>>10720601
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Relationship_to_the_Bible
Note that the epic of Gilgamesh predates the Hebrew bible considerably and is in no way theologically compatible

[Anonymous No.10720627]

>>10720616
>Your claim is not objective so it lacks physical manifestation.

Yep.

>brainlet.jpeg

Not an argument.

>Ok you’re actually a brainlet who doesn’t even know what temperature is.

Not an argument.

>Jesus christ, stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10720630]

>>10720532
is “observers exist” subjective, then?

[Anonymous No.10720637]

>>10720627
don’t listen to that anon about stopping

I, for one, am glad you left it on the record that you don’t know basic physics ;-)

[Anonymous No.10720638]

>>10720630
>is “observers exist” subjective, then?

Yes. No one would be making that assertion if no observers existed.