Mind our own business, not the business of others

Take responsibility for all outcomes of all our decisions (stop making excuses and blaming others or circumstances)

Avoid competing and start cooperating. Life is not a "zero sum game"

Learn about the real world rather than fantasy worlds presented by others.

Share what we can of what we have with those who are deserving

According to myth, legend and folk tale back in those times dead bodies came back to life and females were made from male ribs.

Or, since nothing is impossible in fantasy, maybe the males reproduced without females? Or females magically appeared?

Consistent we (as a society) are NOT -- nor are we fair, just, or rational in our mores and our laws

Living alone does not require a lack of love.

Perhaps it is useful to differentiate between being alone vs. living alone. You and I both both live alone without being alone. Friends (and family in some cases) can provide satisfying person-contact (and love) without the necessity of cohabiting.

Some who are "coupled" choose to live largely separate lives, others may choose to be "joined at the hip." A few choose to be hermits. It is personal preference, typically based on past experience.

For much of my adult life I considered cohabiting to be all but necessary; however, over the past couple years discovered the benefits of living separate from others.

Arguments against incest BASED on probability of defective offspring are invalid for two reasons:

1) Reproduction can be controlled with medicine and in the unlikely event of birth control failure, abortion is available in our society

2) Prevention of defective offspring cannot rationally be claimed as justification when laws make no effort to prevent defective offspring in other situations.


It would be extremely naive to assume that I favor incest or abortion because I identify defective arguments.

Are there reasons other than the above, valid reasons, significant enough to criminalize incest (between consenting adults)?

Quotations from different pages in the same book do not constitute "knowledge from different places" or even knowledge. Biblical writings cited are unverifiable OPINION written by people whose identity is not known to scholars and theologians -- and who wrote decades or generations after the events that they cannot be shown to have witnessed.

Can you refute, with verifiable information, anything I have said?

Note the term "verifiable" -- meaning "To confirm the accuracy or truth of something." That a book makes a claim in different places is NOT verification.



If someone claims to KNOW in advance what I will reply, they must be supernatural (or think they are).

That wild imagination IS believed by many (perhaps most?) even in many "advanced", industrialized, "educated" societies.

Myth, legend, folklore and fantasy are far easier to understand, and for many to accept, than the complexities of the real world.

Actual study of what exists and what has existed or transpired is difficult. Answers to complex questions (or even simple questions) are not always "black and white" or certain.

Supernaturalism offers an easy way with "goddidit", relieving the need to learn about diseases, atmospheric processes, and/or nature in general. "Just believe and go to heaven"

From personal observation and reading:

Many seem to desire or admire adventure, some amount of risk-taking, a measure of self-reliance and disregard for social conditioning --�� while placing greater emphasis on safety and security for themselves. That dichotomy may lead to being attracted to unconventional traits in others (or in fantasy / fiction) as a means of living vicariously.

Another possibility that occurs is that a "good" (conventional) person may think that associating with a "bad boy" could "bring them out of their shell" (or box) to experience life with a more adventuresome spirit.

Many SAY or believe that we have only one life; however, there doesn't seem to be much evidence one way or the other. I choose to live as though once is it -- but am open to other possibilities (given verifiable information)

It should rationally be no more "wrong" (or mad-making) to attack (challenge) religion than it is to promote it.

In reality, most religions attack / challenge (dismiss, denigrate) religions different than their own. That is a form of product differentiation -- making one's preference appear to be different from and superior to competitors.

To that extent religion is not different from other businesses -- address or create a felt-need, offer a solution that is claimed to be superior, advertise to attract customers, charge for your services (and if possible designate fees as donations and achieve tax exemption).

It appears as though the thread has brought to light several major ideas:

1) Some people assume that possessing a trait they consider "good" is indication that a person is "good" in general

2) Some people prioritize animal relationships above human relationships and infant / child relationships above adult relationships (and require the same as a prerequisite for friendship)

3) Some people restrict friendship to those who share their religious beliefs.

4) Some people appear to equate their requirements for friendship with requirements for a potential mate (as though friendship is limited to mate-material people).

5) Some who love dogs, kids and gods are not adverse to condemning or denigrating those who do not.

6) Emotion is often a (or the) deciding factor in decisions by many people.

Agreed.

The bible is also myth, legend, folktale, testimonial, parable, fiction, fantasy.

Some individual items MAY have basis in fact, but the literally true can seldom be separated from the fictional / imaginary.

The same can be said of other religious texts and traditions. There is nothing unique or sacred about the bible. It is the work of fallible humans serving their own agenda and that of Roman emperors.

If (since) loving dogs, kids and gods doesn't make a person "good" or "faithful", WHY are they common requirements for friendship?

Is one who loves horses or wild animals less sensitive than one who loves dogs?



Could also be a pedophile. Is there a foolproof way to distinguish in advance?



If faith = faithful (usually), why do religious couples divorce at rates equal to or greater than non-religious couples?

Be wary of mirrors.

For me, forgiveness does not require that I stay in a relationship or friendship. Yes I forgive the person, but I may not wish to associate with them. For instance, if a person chooses to begin regular use of methamphetamine, they have my sympathy and forgiveness for the damage they may have done; however, I am not willing to sustain a relationship with them.

Over the past decades I have encountered most of the listed items in relationships at one time or another. I was usually somewhat tolerant as they became evident, but became intolerant of some of them – even to the extent of terminating relationships.

I do not disagree with the self-analysis.



Perhaps "ignorant snob, just ignorant, fatheaded opinions, a snob and an ignoramus, and tell you to f**k off" is just an unemotional, rational, discussion by an animal lover? Others may appreciate having a champion for the cause.



Notice very carefully that I have not said anything to anyone about muzzling any dog. That is something from a vivid imagination -- perhaps offered for lack of anything better to say.



Your "point" appears to be that you disagree with my personal preferences and feel it is your place to denigrate them. Is there anything else?



If you will identify (quote) an actual argument that you have made, I will respond. It appears to me as though you have emoted extensively and told personal stories that are not relevant.



Aw shucks. Regurgitate then Retreat. It has been amusing watching the antics and seeing the personal stories offered as though they constituted discussion or debate.

Well said.

Compromise or agree to disagree on small things but not on important issues. A "force fit" relationship is likely to produce negative results and to be unhealthy / unrewarding.

It would seem as though IF church people were loving and good the divorce rates for church people would be lower than non-church-people --�� but they are not.



Sounds like a plan --�� but perhaps it would be more effective to avoid the church entirely and meet elsewhere.

There might be one in Arkansas