Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

quote:

---

What do mean science doesn't tell us what to do, only what happens if we do it?

---

Science does not tell food handlers what to do. Science shows that not washing your hands in food preparation can lead to the transmission of harmful bacteria to people who consume the food. Society then decides that this would be a bad thing and laws are enacted. However, the science did not tell them to do that. Only that the consequences of a certain procedure could cause sickness.

quote:

---

Sticking you dinky in someones ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do, even if it feels wonderful

---

I would have ignored this but do you actually think that "sticking your dinky" in someones vagina is a clean thing to do? Most coliform bacteria are at least not pathogenic. Regardless, science can tell you which behaviors can lead to a higher chance of catching a disease. It does not tell you what to do about it. In fact, science suggests that wearing a condem during sex can radically lower you chance of being exposed to or transmitting the AIDs virus..yet millions of people still practice unsafe sex.

quote:

---

what do you think should determine our morals?

---

Each person determines their morals for themselves. Whether they decide to rely on mythological figures or not, each person determines their own morality. Science won't tell you how to behave...it can tell you what the consequences of your behavior might be.

quote:

---

Science and the scientific method are set up to be blame free, or so we are taught to believe that way

---

Then you have been very poorly taught. Science is a means to describing natural phenomena and characterizing the way they work. It is set up to discover. I challenge you to point out where in the history of the development of the scientific method, scientists proposed developing a system that was blame free as opposed to a system of discovery.

quote:

---

and then make laws, which help determine our morals.

---

Laws determine your morals? That is a strange view of things.

quote:

---

So if you think for one second that in the real world that science doesn't affect our laws, and now our morals, then you are living in a state of denial.

---

Now you have changed your stance from "determines" to affects. Heavy snowstorms affect our laws when people stay home from voting rather than face the weather. Should we now blame the weather for our laws and morals? There is still a difference between a religious/political mechanism TELLING you what you can or cannot do and using physical or psychological coercion to enforce it and science which can determine cause and effect or the chances of a negative outcome but which cannot force you to do anything. I can tell you that sticking your hand in the fire will cause you to get burned. I cannot prevent you from being stupid enough to stick you hand in the fire.

quote:

---

But there are many things we can learn from our past, religion included.

---

A strange pair of juxtaposed sentences...there is actually nothing scientific that I can learn from religion.

quote:

---

No its not either. All sex is dangerous, just like guns.

---

Eating is also dangerous. Walking is very dangerous. In fact taking a shower is quite dangerous, as you can slip and fall, scald yourself with water, etc. Life is dangerous. But it beats the alternative.

quote:

---

Behind door #1 we have no chance of getting aids, behind door #2 you have a slight chance of getting aids, and behind door #3 you will most likely get aids. Which door do you pick? Science just laid out the odds in front of you, and so you had to consider the odds. You might still make a dumb choice, but most people would base it on the odds. Science just help you dictate what is wrong and right. Science is an accesory to the crime. And if we make everything ok to do, based on our scientific findings, I don't feel that is wise.

---

You completely contradicted yourself here. First you show three possible outcomes. Then you say that people may still choose one of the riskiest behaviors even knowing the risks associated, yet you claim that because they know these odds science has dictated their behavior. Nonesense. Science gives people what is required to make an informed decision. However, they have to decide which behavior is right for them. And you freely admit this. Science cannot dictate that. Religion and politics can dictate the "right" choice to make either via law, physical threat, or psychological threat. Science lacks this power.

quote:

---

And if we make everything ok to do, based on our scientific findings, I don't feel that is wise.

---

Beats relying on dogmatic religion telling you what is right or wrong (which is totally changeable depending on which religion you decide to follow) based on no authority, no information, and an implied threat/reward system. I rather know based on fact what is behind door 1, 2, and 3 than just fly blind.

quote:

---

Can we just establish that science is in fact blame free, per say?

---

Then I don't understand the point you are arguing. If science is blame free (which I think it is) and you agree with that then we don't have a debate. But I don't think you mean this since you say the opposite below.

quote:

---

No its not, its reality. Just read some of the responses to my post. again, its not an absolute, but a contributing factor. To completely disconnect the 2 would be wrong, and mis-leading.

---

It is illegal to buy alcohol when you are under 21 in the US. Does that law make drinking immoral? If a 20 year old drinks a beer is he immoral and the 21 year old not? The law prescribes certain behaviors that will be punished (if caught)..not directly morality..or do you think zoning laws are a moral issue rather than a legal one? Which moral stance do zoning laws determine for you?

quote:

---

Sure there is. Just read the OT, an account of how people behaved. Then start a scientific study on why we used to behave that way. So religion becomes part of a scientific study.

---

About the only scientific information I could imagine that would pertain to religion would be some of the studies that examine brain activity during religious experience..the same way they measure brain activity for other experiences. Or the fitness advantages religion may have conferred on groups by providing group identity historically. Otherwise, religion is irrelevant to science...certainly the OT.

quote:

---

If your going to use words like consent, and scientific study, in your reasoning to make one thing right or another, then it must be applied to all things, so that your not hypocritical.

---

Where am I being hypocritical? I did not use the word consent....and how does scientific study making one thing right over another? I have been consistently arguing exactly the opposite of what you just said.

quote:

---

Sp basically your admitting to what I am trying to say here. And that is your choice. But your choice isn't any more right than a choice I might make. Science is not the "right way" and religion the "wrong way". I like the middle ground, and want to learn from both experiences. Especially when science and religious ideas both sort of say the same thing. An example is "sexual immortality" in the bible, and sex being bad for you in science.

---

No, I am not admitting any such thing. You are claiming that I am saying exactly the opposite of what I said..the second time in this post. Science can demonstrate the effects certain chemicals, biological agents, behaviors etc. may have on your biology i.e. bacteria and viruses causing specific diseases. Statistical probabilities of contracting disease given a specific sexual practice. It does not tell you what is right or wrong...it is freely up to you to do what you want with that info including ignore it. The weather man is not telling you what to do when he predicts that there will be snow. He is providing information.Furthermore, religion just tells you what is right or wrong based on opinion. It provides no information. Just assertions. Science does not tell you that sex is bad, immoral or any such thing. It does not tell you all unprotected sex is dangerous (if that were true there would be no children). Xianity for its part demonizes sex based on its own bizarre prudish dogma and is not based on anything scientific. You are free to follow that and ignore the science. Science won't tell you what you should or should not do.

quote:

---

You want to make it ok because we can consent to it, and it isn't hurting others. But is it? If it is not hurting others, then why is there so many people with STD's? Becuase they all consented to it, or most all. Seems like our own judgment is killing us.

---

People get STD's because they engage in risky behaviors and ignore the scientific studies that demonstrate the biological consequences. They have made their choice to ignore it. Before the biological basis of STD's were known, you know what? People still got STD's. Is that sciences fault to? Science did not tell them that having sex or getting STDs was right or wrong. Science established what STDs are, how you get them..and in some cases, has provided treatments against them. Religion has done none of this. People will ignore scientific data...heck, the general American public ignores science completely. The fact that religious people get STDs indicate that they ignore their religious rules of right and wrong to.

quote:

---

just pointing out the facts

---

The facts are that science can inform you, can establish cause and effect, may even provide a means to preventing harmful effects..but it does not tell you what is right or wrong.

quote:

---

Then that is the problem, if you think science is blame free. You are treating science as though it was a noun.

---

No, the problem is you are treating science as if it is the law or the determiner of the law.

quote:

---

Absolutly. Morals is all about what is considered right and wrong. It's not just about personal morals.

​

From more than one source we can determine that drinking while under the age of 21 is not a good idea. If you do it, or encourage to do it, you are going against morals. Social morals. But its not always black and white, there are gray areas.

​

Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with all of this.

---

So you equate morals with the law? Intersting. Drinking under 21 in Germany is legal but in America it is not...which is moral? Owning slaves was legal in the US...was it moral then? Is sharia law then moral because it is law in some countries?

quote:

---

Thats just your opinion.

---

Then show me wrong. Religion has nothing to teach science..it is a major impediment to scientific progress in America in particular...please show me how religion will help me figure out the effects of epigenetics on the expression of HERVs in macaque brains?

quote:

---

Right and wrong is a part of morally acceptable. Go look up the word moral

---

And what does this have to do with science? If you find stem cell research morally unacceptable, does this change the properties of stem cells?

quote:

---

Example. You are holding a glass of brake fluid. You are contimplating taking a sip. Then someone presents a scientific study that reveals you will be dead in 20 minutes if you take that sip.

​

I am sure that science would then AFFECT your decsion. Where as before, without that knowledge, you would have made a mistake.

---

How do you know what the consequences would have been without the scientific study? What if you knew the result of the study but decided not to tell the person? Did science tell you to do that, to withhold the information? The scientific study provided facts, the person made his own choice...he could have still consumed the poison. How is this in anyway similar to a statement or "law" like "thou shalt not kill"?

quote:

---

Yes, and getting, and spreading STD's is IMO morally wrong. It affects us as a society.

---

The difference is it is you opinion that it is morally wrong. Science does not tell you that it is morally right or wrong..only that STD's can affect your health which is a morally neutral statement like the sky is blue.

quote:

---

For the last time, I never said it tells you what is right or wrong. I said it influences you, sometimes very heavily, and sometimes incorrectly.

---

Being blind influences blind people. Being deaf to...does being blind determine your morality? You have failed to show that science determines morals or even how it directly affects morality.How about this, it is known that condem use reduces the risk of both unwanted pregnancy and transmission of STDs. But many so called moral Xian groups spend huge amounts of money and time to make sure that millions of people either remain uninformed of this fact or have access to this protection. They claim they are moral. Science did not influence this morality...in fact the "moral" is in direct opposition to what is the healthiest behavior. Morality and right and wrong are coming from elsewhere...not from science.

quote:

---

How many times are you going to repeat that, and ignore my point, even though I print it clear enough.

---

Your point is clear enough and I have not ignored it. The problem is your point is wrong.

quote:

---

Look up the definition of moral, I believe you will find the dictionary will agree with me.

​

And yes morals are relative to the times, and knowledge.

---

Now this is interesting...I thought you fundamentalist types claimed morals are absolute? Now they change with the times?Anyway, how does knowledge affect morals? I gave you an example where "morality", at least right wing Xian, goes against knowledge or denies the knowledge exists.

quote:

---

The properties (actual) of stem cells is no more science than religion is. Science is the study of both. It is then what we do with the results, and how we factor it into our lives that make up morals. If one or the other is wrong, then your moral base is faulty.

---

Um..science is not the study of religion. And studying the properties of stem cells is only done using science. The properties themselves are facts.It may not be an intended consequence of your arguement but you are implying that the more knowledge a person has the more moral they are. I might be willing to concede that willful ignorance is immoral

quote:

---

Exactly Watson.

---

?

quote:

---

We are not talking about withholding information here, do not change the topic

---

Sure we are. You are claiming that science is responsible or as much of an influence on morality as religion because it gives us knowledge. Now you imply here that the knowledge is not relevant. Science is the gathering of knowledge.Make up your mind..either knowledge is responsible for morality and thus science is or it is not..you cannot argue both ways.

quote:

---

Based on the.......facts. You've almost got it.

---

No, not the way you mean it. In some cases you make decisions based on facts..in some cases you make them flying blind. Where is the morality stemming from if I am making decisions in either case or does morality have anything to do with it at all?

quote:

---

What kind of moral choice would that have been based on the known facts?

---

It would have been a stupid choice..not a moral choice. Maybe he has a distrust of facts or authority..or is just dense.

quote:

---

Thou shall not kill is a law based on facts

---

Oh really? What facts are those? The US just executed its 1000th inmate. People kill people all the time for economic benefit or emotional reasons. What facts are these laws based on? Certainly not the bible...your god was a mass murderer in the old testament.

quote:

---

Your problem is that you keep trying to separte them all. They are not the same exact things, but they all work together to provide us with morals, and laws.

---

And you conflate completely unrelated things.

quote:

---

Would you agree that ones morals could be wrong, even by their own judgement, if they did not know all the facts?
Or do you believe that morals are never wrong?

---

No, I don't think morals are never wrong. I think radical right wing Xians are completely immoral. They think that I am. Who is right. Facts seem to have no impact on their reasoning.

quote:

---

Can science and religion say the same thing, or is that just an impossibility with you?

---

Can you give me an example of science and religion actually addressing the same thing?

quote:

---

Biblical morals, so far as I have tested, are absolute.
Whether you choose to take on these morals as your own, is up to you

---

This is exactly the opposite of what you said. In fact, you have been largely inconsistent. First, morals = law is something you supported. Then morals change with time. Now, morals are absolute.Then why is science an issue for morals at all to you if Biblical morals are absolute?

quote:

---

For believers, it affects how we translate the morals of the bible. Just look at how many religions there are, and how the morals can vary slightly for religion to religion.

---

But you said Biblical morals are absolute. They cannot vary slightly from religion to religion...that means all but one religion is wrong..which one is the absolute one?

quote:

---

You see, I don't have a problem with what is, but I do have a problem with the study of what is

---

So you would prefer that we remain ignorant? That is an interesting position...how do you justify ignorance morally?

quote:

---

I never said it was the study of religion. But the study of religion and the things accociated with it, can be part of science. How many scientifical studies are there out there regarding prayer? You need to retract that statement.

---

I do not retract my statement. You phrased it in such a way that religion is somehow intrinsic to science. It is not. And by the way, the fraction of scientific articles on prayer is miniscule compared to just about any subject...and probably to your chagrin...the studies I have read have actually shown an increase in negative outcomes for those who pray than those who don't...maybe this is why you have a problem with studying what is?

quote:

---

i.e. Take a scientist from 300 years ago, and bring him into the present. He would have to change his morals mighty fast, based on what he would learn. So we will have to change our morals in the future, as well learn more about ourselves, and the earth. It just keeps changing, so when is it ever right?

​

Religious morals do not change, and they hold up.

---

What a load of horsecrap. Religious morals change like night and day...300 years ago you could have owned slaves as is allowed in the "absolute" moral bible. Your wife would be your property. So religious morals do not hold up...they shift with the times dramatically...so much for absolute morals.

quote:

---

No, your wrong, it would have been a moral choice, because he has to decide if he is going to live or die. That is a moral decsion.

---

You ignored half my question.

quote:

---

I am not going to stick up for God, but he can do what he wants with his creation.

---

That is an interesting position...so you admit your god may be immoral but that by following its rules, you are moral...rather schizophrenic.

quote:

---

Where do you get your morals from?

---

From myself and from my interactions with my environment...just like everyone else.

quote:

---

What does Jesus think of you?

---

Since I am an atheist..why would I care? But getting back to fundie Xians...which teachings of Jesus do they follow? Taking money from the poor, capital punishment, establishing a theocracy in the US, waging offensive wars....what would Jesus think of American Xians?

quote:

---

But if you walk through a hospital ward, and pray for people to be healed, it is a good thing according to biblical morals

---

If you get a medical degree and treat people who are sick that is a good thing by my morals. Yours is wasting valuable time.

quote:

---

Science studys would agree that showing love to sick people can help them heal.

---

Science also shows that poeple who don't pray have a better prognosis after heart surgery than those who do....thems the breaks

quote:

---

I just get the feeling you have pre-concieved notions about me.

---

No, this is not something personal. I just disagree with your points and don't see consistent logic in your posts.

quote:

---

There is no absolute religion. Only Jesus would be able to accomplish that. That is what the bible teaches me. I mean explain to me why one church would accept gay people in leadership, and another would not?

---

Exactly, there is no absolute religion because there are no absolute morals. Those who proclaim that they follow absolute morals are only using it as a political device to separate themselves from others and to proclaim themselves better in some way. It is a justification for other actions which may sometimes be abhorrent. Xians are certainly not the only religious group guilty of this practice.

quote:

---

So where did I say that I prefer to remain ingnorant?

---

those who prefer to cling to preconcieved notions based on mythology and reject real world observations prefer to remain ignorant. You cannot like science because it tells you what you want to hear. This is actually indicating a profound dislike of science.

quote:

---

And by your own admission, it is a part of it, no matter the size.

---

I do not admit any such thing.

quote:

---

Yes, I do have aproblem with the outcomes. This is a good example of where I run into a problem with science. How could we possibly pretend to know all the variables? You see, our knowledge is limited, and that affects our abilities to study things. THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP, but it does mean we should be careful what we claim to know.

---

Not knowing all the variables does not mean one can just decide to claim science knows nothing. We don't know all that much about how gravity works yet people fly in airplanes. One cannot equate not knowing all the variables with knowing nothing.

quote:

---

Cleary science is wrong, and if I listened to it, it would keep me from spiritual truths, as it might be keeping you from it too.

---

Denying outcomes you don't like is a childish response. It is like the bible claiming there are cud chewing rabbits and therefore rabbits must chew cud...all nonsense. You see the difference between science and religion is that science proceeds from a hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable i.e. it may be wrong. The hypothesis is tested and if found wanting it is modified. The process is continued and refined. It has been the most effective endeavor of our species. Religion starts from the stance that it is the truth. If any evidence contradicts this position, it is ignored or suppressed and thus never progresses.

quote:

---

Lets not get off topic on prayer now, ok?

---

Fine..but for the record..you brought up prayers studies.

quote:

---

Where do I say God is immoral? I clearly explained how he knows what is best for his own creation, just like I know what is best for my 68 camaro. It's not our fault that we don't understand it.

---

If your god encourages keeping of slaves (in the bible), killed off women and children...then why should you believe "thou shalt not kill"? Why is that a moral from your god when your god does not practice this belief itself? And if you decide that what is best with your 68 Camaro is to run over kindergarten children? Why is it moral or immoral in your opinion if "you know best" what to do with it?

quote:

---

This is where I get angry. I get angry because people like you can clearly see what is wrong with the way people are claiming to be Christian. But instead of fixing it, you choose to destroy it. In other words, I feel you telling me, yea there is nothing wrong with Jesus, and what he taught, but since it never works, then it must be wrong. How lame, and how lazy of you.

---

No, that is not the problem as I see it. I think those people are acting fully consistently with what they see as Christianity. You are as well. It is as flexible as having no beliefs. That is my point. Xians effectively sell themselves as the only source of morality. So do Muslims, Hindus and everybody else. There are no absolutes.

quote:

---

But you didn't answer the quetion. What would Jesus think of you. I didn't ask if you care or not

---

Since I don't believe he was divine and since I am not even convinced that a single person named jesus ever existed, your question is irrelevant. I don't think about what Santa claus or the great pink unicorn that I don't believe exist think either.

quote:

---

If you just lay down all the scientifical BS, you'll find that it just plain works. It really doesn't matter how. Stop trying to explain it. even if someone is going to die, and no amount of prayer is going to help, it helps them to find peace, and not go out suffering as much.

---

So if believe that sticking a live frog in their butts and playing Mozart on the banjo will make them feel better even if it is scientifically shown to do otherwise, I should ignore that scientific BS? How about gravity, I would prefer to be able to fly...I guess it is scientific BS that gravity crap...I must therefore be able to fly. Praying is fine if it floats your boat. But I will take my chances with a professional doctor any day over a bunch of people praying that I recover from the flu.

quote:

---

Medical degree equals good morals?

---

No, my point was that I find it more compelling and useful if someone trains to heal other people by going through the expense and rigors of a medical education than someone who goes around praying. I also know plenty of doctors who are jackasses...and have been successfully treated by them i.e. they did something positive for me...I know lots of total jackasses who pray...they certainly have not alleviated any condition I have or made my life more pleasant.

quote:

---

They studied every single person who ever had a heart attack?

---

Then gravity does not work either since not every single peson who ever lived has jumped off the Empire State Building...you also might want to avoid every medicine or medical procedure ever invented not to mention cars, boats or airplanes since not every variable has been studied on every individual..LOLI thought you did not want to talk about prayer and that it is all scientific BS anyway ?

quote:

---

There may be absolute morals, but we will never know them. There are absolute morals amoung religions. But I guess it can vary from religion to religion.

---

Absolute morals that vary from religion to religion? It may not be absolute morality but that logic is absolutely ridiculous

quote:

---

What I don't like about science is that we live thinking things are a certain way for so long, using that knowledge to help us go through life, then science has the right to just say we were wrong, and this is how it really is based on new discoverys.

---

Well, that is too bad for you but science is not undertaken to caress our egos or fullfil our biases. In fact, it does its best to control bias and remain free of dogma. If you don't like that then it is hard to reconcile this with your previously stated admiration of science. Science progresses..dogmatic religion does not.

quote:

---

So if that isn't a prime example of what I am saying, then I don't know. This person wants to base a moral belief on science, while disregarding religous morals. Trading religion for science. If science is so correct all the time, and we can base how we live on it, then why is it allowed to be wrong? You see my point?

---

That was not a quote from me. But in any case, why not disregard religious morals? You already said that they vary from religion to religion and people pick and chose based on what they like. At least the quoted person based his behavior on a low risk of harm. If your "religious based morals" cause physical or psychological damage to people by repressing them then I find your religion immoral and would chose a morality that did not lead to such dogma proscribed harm.In any case, the person you quoted is using science to determine whether sex or monogomy are dangerous or not..not if they are moral.

quote:

---

Science does not know a thing. Science knows no more than the word run.

---

Strange incoherent statements. not sure what you are trying to get at.

quote:

---

My 40 years of existance tells me different

---

One can exist without any clue whatsoever for lengthy periods of time...that is hardly an indication that your position is correct.

quote:

---

It is right until it is wrong.

---

You mean from the absolute moral perspective which can vary depending on the preference or whim of the "absolutist"? Ok, then it is wrong.

quote:

---

That was a different time, a different way of life.

---

That is what I love about Xianty..the complete lack of consistency..absolute morals vary by preference, by time, way of life..but they are still absolute. In effect, you can do anything you want..even become a serial killer and it is still absolutely moral as long as you put it into some kind of favorable context...and I as an atheist am supposedely immoral with no ethics?

quote:

---

Not exactly. The bible says there are many ways to live, but only one idea will get you into heaven. Believe in Jesus, Love God, and love others. Its pretty simple. Those are some of the absolutes I live by now that I am a witness.

---

You do realize however, that there are a lot of people who completely disagree with you who are Xians? And they also justify their positions with the bible.

quote:

---

I don't believe you.
You are just avoiding the quetion. You know what Jesus is all about, you've read the bible, what would he think of you?

---

Your not believing me is your problem..not mine. The real question is what does Gandalf think of you? I am assuming you regard Gandalf as a fictional character from Lord of the Rings and don't believe he has an opinion of you since he does not exist in reality...well, that is how I feel about your question.

quote:

---

Gravity does not = science.
Gravity is what is, science is the study of what is.
Your bluring the lines agian.

---

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, yet lots of people disbelieve both. But your statement was that science cannot explain anything...yet you would probably subscribe to the current scientific consensus of the theory of gravity even though it is based on what you would call scientific BS.

quote:

---

This is more evidence to me of what you might have been through regarding religion.

---

Actually, my experiences with religous people have been largely benign. But I do have a lot against those who claim moral authority based on their own personal mythologies and try to sell it as absolute...also those who claim their personal preferences are somehow equivalent to the objectivity of methodological naturalism or that remaining ignorant is a necessary state.

quote:

---

This is really just a big bogus statement and has nothing to do with any of what I am saying.

---

You said unless every single individual that ever lived was tested for the same thing, we cannot know anything..that is the bogus statement.I am fine with you believing what you want to believe and rejecting science in fact. If you prefer prayer to modern medicine that is fine...if you rather throw up your hands in the air any time you are confronted with what you don't understand and saying "goddidit"..great for you..but some of us rather actually know how the universe works and what reality is...unfortunately, there seem to be very few of us that are American anymore.