If you've had sex outside of marriage, you're part of the problem...

They already know it's the truth, it's why they're so rabidly writhing at the sight of it, because "muh responsibility is haerd".

For sure if you're not a virgin you don't deserve a virgin girl

so you want to be gassed?

Also OP, don't make threads like this on weekends. Due to low traffic mods are free to unleash the full extent of their autism unnopossed.

Apparently it was bumplocked because there was already a birthrate thread. Nobody would ever know that, though, because imkampfy can't just edit my OP and point people there.

I don't consider the threads the same, though. That thread looks like everyone is worshiping women. Barely anything about immorality or what lead to a birthrate decline in the first place.

You're pathetic. Your own data shows that a man who has had over twenty partners is still not as likely to have a divorce as a woman that has had *two*. And "secularism" has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity on either side of the gender aisle, there's plenty of religious and promiscuous people out there.
Religion is a crutch for idiots who can't engage in rational thinking for themselves and need a fairy godmother to figure shit out for them. Embracing it is tantamount to acknowledging a mental handicap. The only benefits it offers are for the stupid. Fedora tipping autists that attack it are only wrong because they don't understand that the reason it exists is largely because of those benefits.

Good goy.

A new stupid ideology based on ignorance and conformity tried to replace an old stupid ideology based on ignorance and conformity? Wow, could never have seen that coming.
The idiocy of religion disarmed people from being able to see the same idiocy in communism. It's practically responsible for creating the intellectual turf necessary to appeal to a broad mass of half retarded proles. That you now paint it as a bulwark instead of fertiliser is the epitome of ignorance and hypocrisy.
But I guess that's exactly what one should expect from somebody that willingly adopted a retard's handbook for healthy living written by bronze age Jews and their shepherd offspring.

Yes, user. We would all truly be smarter than anyone and anything if we just rejected ignorance. It's really that simple. I've already rejected ignorance a long time ago. I don't know why everyone else hasn't. I wish people would just reject ignorance and join me in being right about everything. The euphoria I feel is unmatched.

Of course it is not that easy as you well know by indication of your sarcastic tone. But the surest way to fail a journey is to refuse to take a single step.
Just believe some idiot across the road who tells you he already knows everything because god/the will of the people/whatever ridiculous deus ex machina device he chose told him. If you really are fool enough to believe him, then following his advice is probably better than trying to think things through yourself.

Ya, so even if it weren't religion, it would be something else. You can't just blame religion for the ignorance itself. Science is a religion. Do you have a problem with science too?

Science is not a religion, some idiots treat it like one, replacing a chosen cadre of approved scientists with the priests of old and blindly bowing to their judgement. Even this however is better than ordinary religion simply by virtue of its modernity and the relative wisdom of these scientists over ancient priests.
Science is the application of the scientific method, which is pretty much a short flowchart of applied critical thought to be used on any random hypothesis to assist in arriving at the truth.
Religion demands faith from adherents, which is a fancy way of saying ignorant and proud of it. It is an evolved means of hierarchical control imposed on the relatively ignorant by the relatively wise, in order to advance their agenda and impose a structure they're unable, or unwilling to articulate the merits of in rational terms.

...

LOL ur ugly.
Devastating. Especially what with this being anonymous and all.
Does it make you feel better about being wrong?

You shouldn't redefine words like that, but I'll go with your definition of what a religion is, for now. Science makes assumptions, and then, with those assumptions as its foundation, it makes up its worldview. What we're doing with science is figuring out the implications of those assumptions as applied logically to everything. At least, that's the joke. The scientific institutions don't even do real science though. They've been influence by other factors into abandoning logical conclusions made with those basal assumptions, and those scientific figureheads would be the religious leaders.

If that's not a religion under your definition, then Christianity wouldn't be either. If it is, then Christianity also is. There's 4 ways this can play out. Science has basic things you must believe in order to be a scientist, a believer of science. Christianity has a few things you must believe in order to be a Christian, a believer of Christ. Your definition of religion says that a religion demands faith from adherents. If you didn't believe the basic beliefs of science, you wouldn't be a scientist. If you didn't believe the basic beliefs of Christianity, you wouldn't be a Christian. So, science says certain things are true, and Christianity says certain things are true. The believers of these beliefs have to believe them to be believers. If one of them is demanding faith, then that means the other is demanding faith as well, since it's the same logical situation.

I'll give you another one to work out. All logic is circular logic. You can't begin to understand anything about the world without making one of these basic assumptions with which to start on. You build on that belief, and you gain a worldview. Logic works on what is put into the logic. The conclusion is already set in stone before you started working on the problem, no matter whether it's a subjective situation or objective situation. The subjective situation has an objective logical conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's right. You don't get to know everything, so you have to start somewhere, and that start will paint everything that comes afterwards. The starting point is a pure guess, because before that, you have nothing to inform you what to choose. There's no logical reason for or against any other starting point.

So, if you think there's a group of people who know the truth, then that's, by normal definitions, a religion.

Not going to discuss where I differ from you on the "religious" kind of science, because despite the fact I don't think you're right about it, I don't particularly care to defend it.
The real, actual kind of science though, the necessary basic assumptions compared to religion are light years apart, and science does everything it can to keep that footprint as small as possible, and if you did not accept that footprint you would be unable to make any kinds of statement about the nature of reality at all.
By contrast, religion starts out with an enormous footprint. And each time something in religion is invalidated, that footprint grows. It keeps retreating into the gaps left by science, which grow smaller every year.

Or, to simplify;

Accepting the basic assumptions of Christianity (and most similar religions) is not dissimilar to paranoid schizophrenia (a large assortment of unprovable assertions that directly contradict much of what we know about nature).
*Not* accepting the basic assumptions necessary to apply the scientific method is also similar to paranoid schizophrenia (rejecting what all sense data tells you is real)

I think you're talking about it conceptually. I haven't found that to be true in practice. Conceptually, I could say that you're wrong, cause what I think makes sense in my own mind. That's not reality though. Even if it were actually true, that wouldn't be reality, because it's just a concept in my mind. What I'm saying is, I think you're doing the same, and I don't think you know what you're talking about in reality. It seems to me that you have an idea of how these things likely work, and you accepted that as the truth, since it's probably the most likely-to-be-true idea that you have about it. Although, I haven't found what you said to be true in reality. I grew up in church, and I haven't found science to bother Christianity, or the believers that I've been around, at all. They've been just as enthusiastic about it as anyone, and maybe more. At worst, if you want to call this a bad thing, even though this happens all the time in science too, there's reinterpretations of the Bible, based on the new evidence.

Also, you don't necessarily need those assumptions that science makes. To say that you do, is to say, purely by faith, that science is correct. You could adopt different assumptions. You don't necessarily need those. I don't really have a problem with those assumptions, but I want them to be understood for what they are. A small footprint is fine, but those assumptions exclude a lot of things, which is what they were designed to do. You can't simply encapsulate everything into a few simple things like that. It's just a starting point. Every new thing we learn using science is a new belief built on those base assumptions. You can't know anything without belief. Everything you know is a belief.

As for the schizophrenia thing, that's not really compelling. I could say the same thing about anything. Also, I thought the problem with paranoid schizophrenia was specifically that you do sense things that aren't there, and you want to disregard those as untrue, despite sensing them.

the fuck do you want from me?
I stayed a virgin thru highschool, only had one year-long relationship that never went past 2nd base, with a christian girl.
went to college, fell in love and maintained a 2-year platonic relationship with a girl i wanted to marry, but over the course of that time she became increasingly brainwashed / leftist, then went to south america on an exchange program and married some fascinatingly oppressed shitskin. (after their marriage failed she revealed to me that their relationship progressed from a friendship to a romance via him actually raping her, yes that's right, a strong leftist womyn finally had her fantasy come true of being raped by a shitskin and so she married him.)
even after THAT sobering experience i still tried to save myself for marriage and couldn't get anyone interested in a second date. by the time i was 23 and still a virgin i just didn't see any way to get started on a relationship-that-might-lead-to-marriage UNLESS i had premarital sex, but even then i picked a girl who was also a virgin and who I definitely had a long-term interest in. we were together for over 2 years until she dumped me to run away to some lesbian hippie fisting commune.
tl;dr: the women required to participate in the ideal scenario you describe have been mostly brainwashed out of existence and are rarer than unicorns in the USA.

So, you're saying two platonic relationships failed, and you tried a sexual relationship, which went literally no differently, and you still don't see that you screwed up on the third one by giving yourself away to her, despite the fact that she wasn't your wife?

It seems to me that you date some seriously retarded chicks. The kind that have severe emotional insecurity. What are the traits you require from a girl? What standards have you set for yourself and any girl you'd be in a relationship with? Also, if you're not a virgin anymore, that excludes some women, who also have standards. So, what are your standards?

I'll give an example, my sister and her husband hadn't even kissed anyone before they got married. The "kiss the bride" thing was their first kiss. These people have standards. They required a lot from each other. They required the other to be a Christian, and they probably required a lot more I don't know about, and they even prayed about it a lot before becoming boyfriend/girlfriend (they hadn't even had one of those before, cause standards), cause they had to make sure this is what God wanted for them. God brought these people together.

So, again, what standards do you have? I'll bet not much, based on your previous endeavors. I require similar things as my sister and her husband did, I'm leaving it up to God to bring me together with someone though. If it never happens, I'll just have to remain celibate for the rest of my life, and that's also ok, cause I'm secure. I'm going to Heaven, so I have nothing much to be freaked out about. I'm free, and that gives me a lot of power.

Why is this thread anchored? Manwhores who indulge in Jewish hook-up culture shilled in Hollywood to increasingly younger children are filth.

yes, well, what do you expect it do to an impressionable 18yearold when she goes off to college to Learn About The World and is fed a constant diet of brainwashing, that she should hate her own race and especially hate all men? women are the weaker vessel by nature, and the ones that can withstand psyops like that are clearly in a small minority - i simply wasn't lucky enough to find one. when i met her she was a beautiful, intelligent, drug-free, high-achieving midwestern girl whose parents were still married and both hold advanced degrees, who dressed modestly and rarely wore any makeup… exactly what red flag did i miss there? if i'd had the strength then that i have now, maybe i could have exerted more influence over her and steered her right… but I was just an impressionable teenager too, also being brainwashed and undermined and emasculated and gaslighted day after day in all my classes, trying to navigate my first serious relationship, living away from my parents' house for the first time, with no idea what to do.
and what lesson was i supposed to learn from what happened? i wouldn't fuck her, she dumped me. Jose Jalapeno did fuck her, without even asking, she married him. well, i guess next time i want a girl to marry me i'd better try fucking her, since that's what seems to actually work. a real-world lesson like that speaks a lot louder than anything you can find in a book, or any theory you might hear from someone else.
is it up to my internal standards of how i'd ideally like to behave? NO! but i can't get married all by myself, and if the ideals i hold seem to rule out every single real person I actually meet, i have to conclude my ideals are unrealistic and need to be adjusted according to how people really are.
seriously,

Ya, but it didn't work, you see? Your adjustment didn't actually work, so you can't say it was a good one, if we're going on what works. It worked with the rapist because she was brainwashed into wanting him. It wasn't about the rape.