Fortunately for me, there are no longer any laws against having sex before marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Printable View
Fortunately for me, there are no longer any laws against having sex before marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What he is saying Tore... is that consent isn't enough. You can't have sex with a 15 year old, with consent or not, without risking jail and/or bancruptcy. You can't have sex anywhere you wish without risking jail and/or fines, not even in Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And I haven't even mentioned infidelity issues.
He is right, your morals are under par even in Scandinavia.
[edit]: Oh and VIF sux.. (just had to get that in too) :beam:
Uhm, I thought it was obvious that that wasn't what I was talking about. A minor isn't old enough to give consent. As for the public thingy, that would require the consent of everyone involved, and anyone watching, as well as those owning the place in question, surely count as involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
The religious moral, of for example christianity, is that sex is restricted to marriage. My moral is that it is not.
And all we really need is a decent striker. A good target man like ivers or jostein flo, I've been saying that for the last 5 years...
I'm not saying that some traditional cares don't work. THe ones that do are what? You guessed it--science.
The Science that helps with all those diseases also caused diseases. One unfortunate example of this is the drug thalidomide (if I remember correctly). A drug for depression, it caused birth defects to any children born. That is some science.
What of this science? Why is this better than religion?
This statement compared to your first statement (under) is completely different. Hard to get consent from the public eye. Consent does not equal age limit but do imply it (age of consent). But you can get tricked.. the law works as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But I agree with the out of wedlock thing... I too am guilty of such a transgression.
Quote:
...my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone. I don't know of a single religion who doesn't put great restrictions on sex. The only restriction I have, is that all those involved consent to it.
Yeah right...Quote:
And all we really need is a decent striker. A good target man like ivers or jostein flo, I've been saying that for the last 5 years...
I'd say that sure science makes mistakes, but scientists learn from their mistakes and prevent future ones from happening for the benefit of all mankind. (hehe, unless they're a mad scientist). religion is set in its ways and will not change based on outside influences. look at the catholic church's denouncement of condoms. how many millions have gotten AIDS as a result of this? not only do they claim condoms are worthless, they translate that message into the language of the poor in many countries around the world. In fact, Cardinals in Africa have actually told their flocks that condoms CAUSE AIDS. In Muslim countries its even worse, where condoms are only allowed for married couples--despite that in Iran you can buy temporary marraiges (sort of like prostitution), and in Pakistan religious law allows a woman to be sentenced to gang rape for a crime committed by her brother.
Religionists were opposed to the smallpox vaccination because they regarded it as an "Interference" with God's so-called design.
Top tip: Theist is a nice neat word.
Theists are not opposed to the smallpox vaccine. In India it was considered a blessing by some but they still all took the vaccine.
On the other hand Science created AIDS.
Plus all those miracle drugs like cocaine, heroin, morphine and LSD to name a few.Quote:
On the other hand Science created AIDS.
I'll keep saying it for the next 5 years too. Unless we change our tactics, we are bound to remain in the lower half of the league without a target man. With such a player, we are contenders for the title. Just look at the match against rbk, when Lange came on, holm suddenly had all the room in the world, and could play with his strengths. While Sørensen was on, he was forced into duels, and never had room to do anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Is this religion or science? :laugh4:Quote:
I'll keep saying it for the next 5 years too. Unless we change our tactics, we are bound to remain in the lower half of the league without a target man. With such a player, we are contenders for the title. Just look at the match against rbk, when Lange came on, holm suddenly had all the room in the world, and could play with his strengths. While Sørensen was on, he was forced into duels, and never had room to do anything.
Most likely religion :)
Well, one of our songs is called "Vålerenga, you're my religion"....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Damn I though you were talking soccer.
It's not one or the other - both can coexist happily.
Both must coexist happily or you have big problems.Quote:
both can coexist happily.
What on earth?Quote:
On the other hand Science created AIDS.
You never heard the story that it was a biological weapons program gone wrong
AIDS: 'The Manufactured Virus'
AIDS as a weapon of war
Thu Jun 28 10:59:13 2001
Really? According to this guy, God created AIDS:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's chariotters".
-Jerry Falwell
I have heard it. But it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Hence my surprise.
Goofball: by chance that Israelite is named Jesus? :beam:
Sorry, can't resist.
It's not an either/or question. Science and religion do different things. Science explains how the world works. Religion explains how to live a moral life. The problems arise when people try to do one or the other with the wrong one. That's when we get people refusing blood transfusions, or performing experiments like Tuskegee.
Many people are both religious and firm believers in the scientific approach, myself included. Like so many things in life, I think proper balance and recognizing the capabilities and limitations of each leads to the most happy and productive life. Religion would never have provided me the computer I'm typing this on, but Science has never inspired me to buy dinner for a homeless man I pass on the street.
Ajax
Wasn't Einstein religious?:juggle2:
No... But Isaac Newton was, and so was Occam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
[edit]: Einstein has always been put in the atheist camp.. but when you do search for his statements on the matter, they are ambigious. Take this as an example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert Einstein
Been thinking about this this morning. People are told that morals come from God. But the facts say otherwise. Moral concepts such as the Golden Rule were around centuries before Jesus. They are the collective principles of humanity. Studies show that atheists are at least as moral as theists, and certainly there is a connection between fundamentalism, in Islam and Christianity, and antisocial behavior. I prefer to call myself a Humanist rather than an atheist because Humanism is the source of our morality and provides a positive outlook on life.
It is a well known fact that very few people actually ever read the religious texts and it is likely that very few of those who read them understand them. So there is chasm between the way a religion is lived and the way it was fundamentally conceived and hence the numerous 'fundamentalist' movements. The argument that I am making is that 'faith' that is driving most religious people is of a vague though absolute kind. Debunking the extraordinary stories of the books, and even providing convincing arguments against God is unlikely to change the views of the majority of religious people.
Science thrives on the parsimonious model. One shouldn't create something if it isn't needed to explain the phenomenon at hand. Hence if all 'natural' phenomena can be conceivably explained by variables at hand then why devise new ones.
He is evasive but my take is that like I he believes there is a higher power out there but hes not sure what nor does he much care. He seems to acknowledge that there is more out there than man can ever understand which is more than most here do. That there is a god of some kind out there. In fact didnt he have a problem with atheism?Quote:
No... But Isaac Newton was, and so was Occam.
[edit]: Einstein has always been put in the atheist camp.. but when you do search for his statements on the matter, they are ambigious. Take this as an example:
I'd be grateful to science for morphine if I ever needed to be operated. But you can think differently if you wish. Thank science for chemical relief :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Seriously though, I bet most of those substances were discovered (in raw form) by accident and not by what we would term "science".
I'm an agnostic. I dare not guess wether there's a godly being or not, I suppose that there could be a extra-universal being wich started the big bang. But that's it - I'm pretty convinced that the Abrahamic God is just another god with a small g.
I dont think they still use morphine to sedate you for an operation. But did religion invent the rifle the tank the bow and arrow or the sword? I dont think so. Does anyone here believe there was less violence between men before there was religion?Quote:
I'd be grateful to science for morphine if I ever needed to be operated. But you can think differently if you wish. Thank science for chemical relief
It's not an anaesthetic, but it is a painkiller-and it's still widely used as such in hospitals.Quote:
I dont think they still use morphine to sedate you for an operation.
Post-operative recovery would certainly be a lot less pleasant without it.
So you see science just like religion has its good and bad points. Its the same for everything. Miss use science and your in trouble and its the same for religion. Isnt it best to study all philosophies and take what good or best from them?Quote:
It's not an anaesthetic, but it is a painkiller-and it's still widely used as such in hospitals.
Post-operative recovery would certainly be a lot less pleasant without it.
Again it shouldnt be Science or Religion it should be Science and Religion. Its not an either or thing for most.
So was God ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
I understand what you're saying, though. Religion isn't the only source of morality, and here in the West, secular humanism is sort of the universal ethic, to get around the church/state divide. However, religion is traditionally one of the main sources of morality, and certainly has had a huge influence on secular morality as well. Either way, science itself does not have an internal ethic to govern it, so requires help from outside. Whether that comes from religion or secular humanism doesn't make a lot of difference, as the moral systems of the major religions and of secular humanism are very, very similar.
Ajax