Shrunk wrote:

John Ayers wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Too bad for Catholics, they don't get to tell others what to do anymore. Woe is them.

Now we pass that buck to liberals. Divorce is now more likely than not. Fatherless children are abound. Broken homes are abound. Abortion is abound. Sexual diseases are abound. Things are so much better. Thank you, liberalism.

Please provide the epidemiological and demographic data that show those have actually increased compared to, oh, I don't know, a century ago. (Except abortion. I can accept those are now more common. But you do realize you're begging the question there, right?)

hackenslash wrote:Nice to see Mick on top form again.

John Ayers wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

How is 10% of the population, not a minority group? But, fair enough, the argument would still apply even if most people were gay.

There's a difference between being in a minority with respect to a trait and being a minority group (in the political sense). Blue-eyed people are in a minority, but they are not a minority group, in the political sense.

When person B is denied something granted to person A on the grounds that person B holds some supposedly undesirable quality, then person B is a second class citizen.

That's not true. What follows is that there is a discrimination of a sort. But nothing about this is sufficient to show that the discrimination is unjustified. Here's a clear counter-example to your general claim: Johnny is a stand-up citizen who is granted a licence to own a gun, but Scott is a person with profound, violent mental disturbances, which is an undesirable condition, and he is not given a licence.

Of course I am not here saying that homosexual behaviour or inclination is like such a mental disturbance-that would be absurd! However, the example is sufficient to send you back to the drawing board.

Nebogipfel wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Nice to see Mick on top form again.

Maybe this thread should be retitled Attack of the Clones?

John Ayers wrote:

The Church wants to deny gay people the possiblity of having the same kind of mutually intimate and fulfilling relationshp with a partner of their choice, while granting that possiblity to straight people.

Gay persons have a choice on Catholicism, but not a choice between the sexes. That same choice is also present and imposed on heterosexual persons. Hence, the choice is the same.

However, is that choice or its implications more difficult for gay persons? Yes, of course. It also makes things harder on people who want to marry themselves or non-humans,

or whatever else that runs afoul to the procreative and conjugal conception of marriage and sex. If you object to this, it is probably because your metaphysical view of homosexuality, sex and marriage is different from the Catholic view. That's cool. Theirs is rooted in the Aristotelean-Thomist worldview, yours is not. You have a clash of world views, but there's nothing bigoted here, so far as I can see, but whadda I know?

And has the Church stopped to check whether this is actually true? How does being homosexual orientates one towards sinful and immoral behaviour compare with being Jewish orients one towards greedy and grasping behaviour

Have you read their reasoning? Which documents and theorists have you read from? Tell me honestly.

I don't know if you're married, Expat, but Iwonder how you'd react to your relationship with your significant other being described as afflected or gravely disordered

I don't know about him, but I'd be fine with it. We all have afflictions. Being prone to anger is one. Gluttony is another. Addictive behaviour is another. We're imperfect beings.

hackenslash wrote:Nice to see Mick on top form again.

John Ayers wrote:Gay persons have a choice on Catholicism, but not a choice between the sexes. That same choice is also present and imposed on heterosexual persons. Hence, the choice is the same. However, is that choice or its implications more difficult for gay persons? Yes, of course. It also makes things harder on people who want to marry themselves or non-humans, or whatever else that runs afoul to the procreative and conjugal conception of marriage and sex.

hackenslash wrote:That is Mick's top form, the silly cunt.

John Ayers wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Too bad for Catholics, they don't get to tell others what to do anymore. Woe is them.

Now we pass that buck to liberals. Divorce is now more likely than not. Fatherless children are abound. Broken homes are abound. Abortion is abound. Sexual diseases are abound. Things are so much better. Thank you, liberalism.

Paul, 2005 wrote:Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.

Results

[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.

[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.

[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries longterm trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between protheistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.6

[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend – contrary to common impression – to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.).

Discussion

[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.

[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, proevolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Spearthrower wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
While John is doing his research, people may want to watch this:



(If you don't have the time, just listen to the tidbit from 10:45 - 12:03. Though I bet you'll have trouble stopping there.)

Great vid and one which will undoubtedly be ignored because it is completely contrary to the wish-thinking at the heart of all these different-but-same Catholics appealing to a nebulous past.

John Ayers wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
While John is doing his research, people may want to watch this:



(If you don't have the time, just listen to the tidbit from 10:45 - 12:03. Though I bet you'll have trouble stopping there.)

Great vid and one which will undoubtedly be ignored because it is completely contrary to the wish-thinking at the heart of all these different-but-same Catholics appealing to a nebulous past.

I listened. I'm unsure why you think this is so compelling. Even the part Shrunk referenced was a huge let down. What points do you think were rebutted here?

Calilasseia wrote:I'll just attend to this canard briefly ...

John Ayers wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Too bad for Catholics, they don't get to tell others what to do anymore. Woe is them.

Now we pass that buck to liberals. Divorce is now more likely than not. Fatherless children are abound. Broken homes are abound. Abortion is abound. Sexual diseases are abound. Things are so much better. Thank you, liberalism.

Actually, according to peer reviewed data, the rates for abortion, single parent families, and sexually transmitted diseases are worse in countries afflicted with religiosity, than in secular developed nations. From The Journal of Religion & Society, we have this nice article:

Cross-National Correlations Of Quantifiable Societal Health With Popular Religiosity And Secularism In The Prosperous
Democracies by Gregory S. Paul, Journal of Religion & Society, 7: 1-17 (2005)

Paul, 2005 wrote:Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.

Delving further into the article, we have this:

Results

[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.

[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.

[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries longterm trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between protheistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.6

[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend – contrary to common impression – to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.).

Discussion

[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.

[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, proevolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Looks like the real world data sticks the middle finger to your presuppositions.

John Ayers wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:I'll just attend to this canard briefly ...

John Ayers wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Too bad for Catholics, they don't get to tell others what to do anymore. Woe is them.

Now we pass that buck to liberals. Divorce is now more likely than not. Fatherless children are abound. Broken homes are abound. Abortion is abound. Sexual diseases are abound. Things are so much better. Thank you, liberalism.

Actually, according to peer reviewed data, the rates for abortion, single parent families, and sexually transmitted diseases are worse in countries afflicted with religiosity, than in secular developed nations. From The Journal of Religion & Society, we have this nice article:

Cross-National Correlations Of Quantifiable Societal Health With Popular Religiosity And Secularism In The Prosperous
Democracies by Gregory S. Paul, Journal of Religion & Society, 7: 1-17 (2005)

Paul, 2005 wrote:Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.

Delving further into the article, we have this:

Results

[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.

[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.

[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries longterm trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between protheistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.6

[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend – contrary to common impression – to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.).

Discussion

[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.

[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, proevolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Looks like the real world data sticks the middle finger to your presuppositions.

Here's another huge let down.

John Ayers wrote:This poster doesn't even seem to know what liberalism is.

John Ayers wrote: Somehow or other he ties me up to religiosity, belief in God and some sort of anti-evolutionism.

John Ayers wrote:Does he even know what was said? Hell, liberalism has even changed the way people hold religious beliefs, considering them to be private and personal rather than public and absolute. Liberalism is an affliction for both the religious and the non-religious.

Thommo wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Nice to see Mick on top form again.

Sorry, have to disagree:-

John Ayers wrote:Gay persons have a choice on Catholicism, but not a choice between the sexes. That same choice is also present and imposed on heterosexual persons. Hence, the choice is the same. However, is that choice or its implications more difficult for gay persons? Yes, of course. It also makes things harder on people who want to marry themselves or non-humans, or whatever else that runs afoul to the procreative and conjugal conception of marriage and sex.

Nasty, petty, bigoted and (worst of all) stupid rehearsals of tired arguments are not nice to see.

I do wonder exactly how thick someone would have to be to fall for such an argument 'If Susan fancies George that's like a human wanting to have sex with a non-human animal, but if John fancies George that's not like a human wanting to have sex with a non-human animal'.

It's deliberately insulting to gay people, but it's also insulting to our intelligence.

John Ayers wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Expat wrote:I'd like to hear a well thought out and clear case as to why Catholic teaching on homosexuality or homosexual sex is bigoted. Please be clear and explain what bigotry amounts to - and do this well- and how it is that Catholic teaching amounts to it. Don't beg any questions either.

Catholics would deny basic human rights to gay people, such as the right to marry, based on gender discrimination (that is to say that a woman cannot marry the same subset of people a man can). This unfair discrimination of people based on their superficial characteristics is a form of bigotry, in this case with clear emotional and in extreme cases physical harm to gay people.

You beg a few questions here. Whether it is a basic human right to marry is a contentious proposition. The gender discrimination you dub as being based upon "superficial characteristics" is another begged question, for that is exactly the sort of question at stake. If you want to argue properly, you cannot presume that which is at stake.

The person to whom you replied asked for a "well thought out" and "clear case". Do you honestly think you've met that task, here in this post?

OlivierK wrote:

John Ayers wrote:Whether it is a basic human right to marry is a contentious proposition.

No it isn't, it's included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for fuck's sake.

John Ayers wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
While John is doing his research, people may want to watch this:



(If you don't have the time, just listen to the tidbit from 10:45 - 12:03. Though I bet you'll have trouble stopping there.)

Great vid and one which will undoubtedly be ignored because it is completely contrary to the wish-thinking at the heart of all these different-but-same Catholics appealing to a nebulous past.

I listened. I'm unsure why you think this is so compelling. Even the part Shrunk referenced was a huge let down. What points do you think were rebutted here?

John Ayers wrote:

Thommo wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Nice to see Mick on top form again.

Sorry, have to disagree:-

John Ayers wrote:Gay persons have a choice on Catholicism, but not a choice between the sexes. That same choice is also present and imposed on heterosexual persons. Hence, the choice is the same. However, is that choice or its implications more difficult for gay persons? Yes, of course. It also makes things harder on people who want to marry themselves or non-humans, or whatever else that runs afoul to the procreative and conjugal conception of marriage and sex.

Nasty, petty, bigoted and (worst of all) stupid rehearsals of tired arguments are not nice to see.

I do wonder exactly how thick someone would have to be to fall for such an argument 'If Susan fancies George that's like a human wanting to have sex with a non-human animal, but if John fancies George that's not like a human wanting to have sex with a non-human animal'.

It's deliberately insulting to gay people, but it's also insulting to our intelligence.

It's one thing to disagree, but it is quite another to offer reasons for your disagreement.

John Ayers wrote: I am unsure if you don't know how to make an argument or you choose not to make an argument.

John Ayers wrote: Thomas, a friend of yours I presume,

John Ayers wrote: charged me with merely asserting that you begged the question here

John Ayers wrote: that I haven't shown it.

John Ayers wrote: I suppose that is true,

John Ayers wrote: but if you were to take a look here, at your post, could you show me what argument I missed?

John Ayers wrote: Is there some super duper small text overlooked? Perhaps you coloured the text of the argument white, I don't know, or maybe you just had that argument in your head but didn't write it. Maybe Thomas can help you out pointing out the argument in your text? Thomas, can you help us here? We're a bit lost. Thommo lost his argument. It's somewhere around here, I just know it.