Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Saying is an attempt to just pretend something is ridiculous. I disagree as several of those studies have been mis-cited to prove homosexual parenting is the same as same-sex parenting…when in reality it was only saying it was marginally better than the status of kids in single parent homes. If advocates of same-sex parenting really wanted to make a case…why compare against something that is already deficient?

I don’t think you have any evidence to back up those claims. Several of their sources unequivocally compare homosexuals to 2-parent households and explicitly find no difference. Examples include:
Allen & Burren 1996
Chan et al., 1996
Tasker, Golombok & Murray 1997

Cameron’s study does appear to have its weaknesses. it seems we have found problems with studies on both sides…of course that still leaves the homosexual side to prove their lifestyle is not harmful to society…and gay activists cannot scream a denial of rights when they have yet to prove they exist.

There is no “perfect study” but the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that homosexual partnerships are not harmful. The flaws in the research to the contrary are so severe as to suggest deliberate malpractice. While you may question the conclusions of other researchers, at least their methods attempt and achieve some scientific rigor. Your no bias article likely makes a few legitimate points, as statistics are easy to get wrong and it is doubtful that a sample of ~50 studies will have no errors. However, much of their criticism is purely subjective, the clarity of a hypothesis statement is not a solid criticism of results. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for tests with greater statistical power, however that does not invalidate the researchers current findings. In other words, if the researchers are 95% sure that their results are valid, you may ask for 99% certainty, but it does not mean the 95% assessment is at all flawed. The authors also left some important claims unsourced, for example they state that “With one exception, the authors of these studies wish to influence public policy to support same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexual couples.” However they do not explain how they came to this conclusion.

I will ask again, why is it primarily religiously motivated researchers who disagree with the consensus? Also, why would religious groups continue to cite the work of people like Cameron when it is so transparently flawed?

Science does not fare well when political agendas are placed before it. The true religion will not contradict science. However be careful in comparing religion and science as both deal with very different realms of life. Science can try to explain and do many things, but it will not tell us what is morally right or wrong. The true religion will compliment science…and science will compliment it.

Certainly, but I thought you were arguing that homosexuality was harmful in a more-than-moral manner.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Not just to me, but to billions others as well.

the 2 billion followers of Christianity do not affirm it’s truth, the number of people that believe in something can not be considered evidence for that thing, this is a logical fallacy often called ‘argumentum ad populum’ or argument from popularity. If this argument held any weight we could call the Roman Pantheon true because in it’s day more people believed in it than in any other God of sorts.

People may have other beliefs. But none of them are verified with the mathematical certainty that Christianity is. None of them have anything like it.

Could you support this claim with evidence? How is Christianity supported by any mathematical certainty? I’m quite confident that there is no mathematical reinforcement of any religion because of the very nature of religion.

That is called the Myth of Overpopulation. 266,853 square miles in Texas, 6.9 billion people. giving you a population density of 25,856 to the square mile. Slightly less than New York City.

That living condition is unsuitable as it would require massive high rise apartment buildings covering the whole state, which is impossible geographically and unsuitable ecologically.

I trust in science to carry us into the future. Fusion, AI, and Nanotech. These are the tools that will take us into the future. there is no overpopulation problem.

If you don’t find that there is an overpopulation problem then you haven’t payed attention to what I linked to you. The human population is massively increasing, secular societies included and the world cannot handle the growth that is currently being maintained by the human population.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

I don’t think you have any evidence to back up those claims. Several of their sources unequivocally compare homosexuals to 2-parent households and explicitly find no difference. Examples include:
Allen & Burren 1996
Chan et al., 1996
Tasker, Golombok & Murray 1997

And there were major deficiencies in those studies. No Basis.

There is no “perfect study” but the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that homosexual partnerships are not harmful. The flaws in the research to the contrary are so severe as to suggest deliberate malpractice. While you may question the conclusions of other researchers, at least their methods attempt and achieve some scientific rigor. Your no bias article likely makes a few legitimate points, as statistics are easy to get wrong and it is doubtful that a sample of ~50 studies will have no errors. However, much of their criticism is purely subjective, the clarity of a hypothesis statement is not a solid criticism of results. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for tests with greater statistical power, however that does not invalidate the researchers current findings. In other words, if the researchers are 95% sure that their results are valid, you may ask for 99% certainty, but it does not mean the 95% assessment is at all flawed. The authors also left some important claims unsourced, for example they state that “With one exception, the authors of these studies wish to influence public policy to support same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexual couples.” However they do not explain how they came to this conclusion.

If No Basis is so subjective, how are all those pro-gay studies objective? The No Basis showed how easy it was to “subjectivize” those studies to fit an agenda. It would be wrong to claim those gay studies had such great scientific vigor when they didn’t.

I will ask again, why is it primarily religiously motivated researchers who disagree with the consensus? Also, why would religious groups continue to cite the work of people like Cameron when it is so transparently flawed?

I have pointed out several times that secular studies and political actions can have a political agenda with a disregard to science. When they APA stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder, it was done due to political pressure. Not religious pressure, but gay activism. It was not changed because of science!

Religious groups cite Cameron because they don’t know his work is flawed as much as the gay agenda cite their own flawed studies. However honestly I don’t think Cameron is as flawed as it is made out to be. Obviously we could spend hours over this though.

Certainly, but I thought you were arguing that homosexuality was harmful in a more-than-moral manner.

And you were arguing that homosexuality was not harmful with damaged studies. We are on opposite sides.

The big point here is that secular studies can be, and are biased. Religion defends science as it understands life to begin at conception, and this is supported by science. Funny enough, secular society doesn’t see that. They don’t want to believe that at conception, a unique growing individual is alive. For some reason, certain people believe the convenient choice of one person should decide the life of an innocent human.

Right now we are debating homosexuality. Religion says the homosexual lifestyle is disordered. Science claims it isn’t but it’s not based on pure science but political correctiveness and agendas.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the…

That is not what I claimed. I claimed my position is right because it is mathematically verifiable.

Could…

jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Who_is_MessianicProphecies

In his book, Science Speaks, mathematician Peter Stoner says that by applying the modern science of probability to just eight of these prophecies, “… We find that the chance that any man might have lived to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10^17.” That would be one in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates:

“… we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly. Blindfold a man and tell him that he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing just eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote in their own wisdom.

“Now these prophecies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 10^17 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ [Mashiach].

“This means that the fulfillment of just eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those [eight] prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10^17 of being absolute.”

1Stoner, Peter W. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963, pp 100-107

I can list a lot more than these , but they won’t fit in a post.
Gen. 49:10; Mic. 5:2 - a kingdom and ruler of Israel shall come from Judah - Mattt. 1:1-2, Luke 3:23,33 - Jesus is from the line of Judah.

Deut. 18:18 - He will be raised up as a prophet - Matt. 21:11, Luke 7:16; John 6:14; 7:40 - Jesus is identified as this prophet.

Psalm 2:6 - He will be a King - Matt. 21:5; John 18:36-37 - Jesus is this King.

Psalm 2:7 - you are my Son, today I have begotten you - Matt. 3:17; Acts 13:33 - God the Father said this about Jesus the Son.

Psalm 69:4; Isaiah 49:7 - He will be hated without a cause - John 15:25 - Jesus was hated without a cause.

Psalm 69:9 - zeal for thy house has consumed me - John 2:16-17 - zeal consumed Jesus as He drove out the traders.

Psalm 78:2 - He will speak in parables - Matt. 13:34-35 - Jesus spoke in parables.

Psalm 110:1; Jer. 23:6 - He will be called Lord - Matt. 22:43-45; Luke 2:11; Heb. 1:10 - Jesus is called Lord by the Lord.

Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; 28:16 - He will be the stone rejected by the builders - Acts 4:10-11; Rom. 9:32-33; 1 Peter 2:7-8 - Jesus is the stone rejected by the builders.

Psalm 118:26; Hag.2:7-9; Mal. 3:1 - He will come to the Temple - Matt. 21:12; John 2:13-17 - Jesus so came to the Temple.

Psalm 132:11; Jer. 23:5 - He, the king, shall come from the House of David - Matt. 1:1; Luke 3:23,31 - Jesus is the son of David.

Isaiah 6:9-10 - they hear but do not understand and see but do not perceive - Matt. 13:14-15; John 12:38-41 - this is why Jesus used parables.

Isaiah 7:14 - He will be born of a young virgin woman - Matt. 1:18, 24-25; Luke 1:26-35 - Jesus was born of the young virgin Mary.

Isaiah 9:1 - His ministry will make Galilee glorious - Matt 4:12-17 - Jesus begins His ministry in Galilee.

Isaiah 9:6 - a woman shall bear a son called Emmanuel (“God is with us”) - Luke 1:35 - Jesus is this one, the Son of God.

Isaiah 11:2 - the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him - Matt. 3:16-17 - the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus like a dove.

Isaiah 32:3-4; 35:5-6- His ministry will include miracles curing the blind, deaf, lame and dumb - Matt. 9:32-35 - Jesus so cured the blind, deaf, lame and dumb.

Isaiah 33:22 - He will be a judge - John 5:30 - Jesus is the judge who judges justly.

Isaiah 40:3; Mal. 3:1 - He will be preceded by a messenger - Mat. 3:1-3; 11:10; Luke 1:17; John 1:23 - Jesus was so preceded (by Saint John the Baptist).

Isaiah 53:3 - He will be rejected by His people - John 1:11; 7:5 - Jesus was rejected by His own people.

Isaiah 61:1-2 - the Spirit of the Lord is upon Him - Luke 4:21 - Jesus says that He has fulfilled this prophecy.

Zech. 9:9 - He will triumphantly enter Jerusalem on an *** - Matt. 21:5; Luke 19:35-38; John 12:14-17 - Jesus so entered Jerusalem.

Mic. 5:2 - Israel’s ruler shall come from Bethlehem - Matt. 2:1,4-8; Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Top

II. Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus in His Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension

Psalm 16:10; 30:3 - He will not be spared from death and yet remain incorrupt - Acts 2:31; 13:33,35 - Jesus conquered death and remained incorrupt.

Psalm 22:1 - My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? - Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34 - Jesus utters this rabbinical formula from the cross declaring that He is the Messiah.

Psalm 22:7 - the people will wag their heads at Him - Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29 - the people wagged their heads at Jesus on the cross.

Psalm 22:7 - He will be mocked - Matt. 27:31; Mark 15:20; Luke 22:63; 23:36 - Jesus was mocked.

That living condition is unsuitable as it would require massive high rise apartment buildings covering the whole state, which is impossible geographically and unsuitable ecologically.

People pay outrageous prices to live in New York City. What you claim here is ridiculous.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That is not what I claimed. I claimed my position is right because it is mathematically verifiable.

I dispute this claim, how did the person you quoted reach his conclusions?

I have recently started a new thread for the analysis of the prophecies you believe have been fulfilled. You can find it here.

People pay outrageous prices to live in New York City. What you claim here is ridiculous.

You misunderstand, the reason the population is so high in NYC is because of the large quantity of high rise apartment buildings and such, fitting 6.9 billion people in Texas is impossible because you cannot just build a High rise anywhere, it needs to have suitable placement, it is also not ecologically sound because of the amount of flora and fauna that would be destroyed in creating such a society.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The natural/supernatural dichotomy is nonsensical. There is no reason of logic to reject the notion of the immaterial.

You’re looking at it wrong, it doesn’t matter if there’s no reason to reject it, what matters is if there is reason to accept it. There is no evidenced reason to reject The Cosmic Teapot but I’m not just going to accept it on those grounds. I personally have found plenty of reasons to reject the supernatural and most of them surround it’s absence of evidence.

The Bible is a collection of documents. We have several dozen of these documents, that testify to G-d referring to Himself as a He. Documentation is all you have to prove any historical event. Our documentation is no different.

Of course it is because it conflicts with other documents that make similar claims. Also, this document has a shoddy past and absolutely zero credibility as there is no verification process to identify it’s truth.

Yes, all the documents refer to G-d as an actual entity.
They generally do.

By they are you referring to the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita or other religious documents that all refer to this being/s? As far as I’m aware they all hold the same evidence in favor of their truth.

It appears to be what it is, documentation. All documentation of events make an assertion by definition. I have no idea where you get the idea that they are conjecture however.

Many of the documents authors are anonymous, the data to support their claims is lacking and we have every reason to believe this document is religious promotional literature that has motive to gain support by lying. Like every other religion and mythology Judeo-Christianity is potentially false.

If you have been through this several times, than you are not unaware of the fulfilled prophecies.

I am not unaware of the claims, I have never come across a prophecy that can conclusively be demonstrated was fulfilled.

And no, I don’t agree to precondtions. They can either be discussed or not.

Yes, they can be discussed and if their truth is to be confirmed we need criterion to judge them by, I can provide such criterion as it would apply to the historical method.

I understand what it means and we have more than met the burden of proof.

You’ve done no such thing, you’ve only told me that prophecies are fulfilled and that that confirms the Bible’s claims. Until some measure of evidence is given then the burden of proof is still on you.

If you feel free to disregard the evidence, than why are you asking for evidence?

What evidence? You haven’t presented any.

We met the burden of proof, we have given you the evidence. If you assert it is in some way insufficient, then the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you.

Indeed, I shall present the criterion in This thread

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I dispute this claim, how did the person you quoted reach his conclusions?

I have recently started a new thread for the analysis of the prophecies you believe have been fulfilled. You can find it here.

 

[Traditional1101]

So do you believe a theocracy is a superior to democracy as a form of government?

yes i do

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

And there were major deficiencies in those studies. No Basis.

“No Bias” does not discuss Allen & Burren 1996 and finds fewer and less substantial problems with Chan et al. 1996 than most other studies.

As I said, many of the problems in “No Bias” are subjective. They might be a valid reason to ask for additional studies, but they do not immediately invalidate the findings of the studies.
Basically, “No Bias” is saying that the existing studies have found their evidence fails to support a link between homosexuality and any societal harm to some degree of confidence. They then claim that this is different from proving there is no link.
True.
However, proving nonexistance is not possible in most circumstances. The authors of “No Bias” must know this, but they seem to be demanding scientists do this anyway.

If No Basis is so subjective, how are all those pro-gay studies objective? The No Basis showed how easy it was to “subjectivize” those studies to fit an agenda. It would be wrong to claim those gay studies had such great scientific vigor when they didn’t.

No, the other studies are objective because they obtained and analyzed data using fairly standard methodologies. Compared to their methods, Cameron’s work looks like a high school science project.

Religious groups cite Cameron because they don’t know his work is flawed as much as the gay agenda cite their own flawed studies. However honestly I don’t think Cameron is as flawed as it is made out to be. Obviously we could spend hours over this though.

You obviously didn’t read the second criticism I posted. The man conducted an interview about his survey that was published in newspapers while he was still collecting data. He said that the survey would provide “ammunition for those who want laws adopted banning homosexual acts throughout the United States.” While he was still collecting data. Not only does that clearly demonstrate his personal bias, but it would likely bias survey respondents.

The big point here is that secular studies can be, and are biased. Religion defends science as it understands life to begin at conception, and this is supported by science. Funny enough, secular society doesn’t see that. They don’t want to believe that at conception, a unique growing individual is alive. For some reason, certain people believe the convenient choice of one person should decide the life of an innocent human.

Obviously they can be biased and “No Bias” makes that claim, but they do not provide any evidence. We are not discussing abortion.

Right now we are debating homosexuality. Religion says the homosexual lifestyle is disordered. Science claims it isn’t but it’s not based on pure science but political correctiveness and agendas.

No, science says it is not harmful. The “disorder” you are talking about is not a scientifically measurable quality.

 

[josephback]

While well intentioned, I think that sucha law would be incredibly hard to enforce unless someone married the Church to the State. And that creates a mixed bag(as much as religous freedom does).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re looking at it wrong, it doesn’t matter if there’s no reason to reject it, what matters is if there is reason to accept it. There is no evidenced reason to reject The Cosmic Teapot but I’m not just going to accept it on those grounds. I personally have found plenty of reasons to reject the supernatural and most of them surround it’s absence of evidence.

Positing the natural/supernatural dichotomy is an assertion. If you want to use it then prove its valid.

Of course it is because it conflicts with other documents that make similar claims…

No other documents make similar claims. If you can show me a religion with dozens of prophecies fulfilled hundreds and thousands of years after they were written, I would be interested in hearing about this mathematical impossibility that no one ever ever talks about…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

yes i do

Awesome. Welcome to CAF.

 

[catharina]

Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

Totally ridiculous idea. Would you station troops at the door?
Truly, I hope you’re only joking - since this idea is nonsensical.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Totally ridiculous idea. Would you station troops at the door?
Truly, I hope you’re only joking - since this idea is nonsensical.

It could be used to penalize people like this:
tldm.org/News12/AtheistProfessorDesecratesEucharist.htm

 

[eagle_eye222001]

“No Bias” does not discuss Allen & Burren 1996 and finds fewer and less substantial problems with Chan et al. 1996 than most other studies.

As I said, many of the problems in “No Bias” are subjective. They might be a valid reason to ask for additional studies, but they do not immediately invalidate the findings of the studies.
Basically, “No Bias” is saying that the existing studies have found their evidence fails to support a link between homosexuality and any societal harm to some degree of confidence. They then claim that this is different from proving there is no link.
True.
However, proving nonexistance is not possible in most circumstances. The authors of “No Bias” must know this, but they seem to be demanding scientists do this anyway.

No, the other studies are objective because they obtained and analyzed data using fairly standard methodologies. Compared to their methods, Cameron’s work looks like a high school science project.

You obviously didn’t read the second criticism I posted. The man conducted an interview about his survey that was published in newspapers while he was still collecting data. He said that the survey would provide “ammunition for those who want laws adopted banning homosexual acts throughout the United States.” While he was still collecting data. Not only does that clearly demonstrate his personal bias, but it would likely bias survey respondents.

Obviously they can be biased and “No Bias” makes that claim, but they do not provide any evidence. We are not discussing abortion.

No, science says it is not harmful. The “disorder” you are talking about is not a scientifically measurable quality.

Allen & Burren 1996…
" This meta-analysis summarizes the available quantitative literature." It’s not a new study. It summarizes what is already out there. This doesn’t add to your stack of studies…it’s a replicate that summarizes available data…data that is tainted.

Chan et al. 1996 might have fewer issues, but that doesn’t in of itself make it a legit study.

Fair enough on Cameron…but again your claims that the religious studies are biased and the secular studies are not is not true.

No Bias points out how they are biased. That is the evidence. You are correct…we are not discussing abortion… however I wasn’t the first to bring up the issue of conception as you did in post #43. I responded.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

The Eucharist is something within a religious group. Gay marriage is a civil issue and encompasses society. This is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Mathematically of course. He is a mathematician after all.

Yes, it is all concentrated into a small space and that is achieved by building up rather than out.

Nor does ecology have anything to do with.

You said the entire population could “live” in a space as small as Texas, I dispute that because it is not possible for them to live in a space that small, you could certainly cram them in there but it would be impossible for the worlds population to live in a space that small.

Why can’t you admit that I was right and that the entire population of the world could conceivably live in an area the size of Texas? Its mathematically undeniable I showed you the numbers and you still cant admit you are wrong. If you can’t admit to being wrong based on the math on something so easily shown and insignificant. In the face of absolute evidennce to the contrary, then what good will it do to talk about Messianic Prophecy in another thread??

You assume that because the population density would be similar to that of NYC, I agree but NYC is small enough that it can be surrounded by open areas that are used to produce food and other key services, a city the size of Texas that has the population density of NYC is too large to sustain a population as food sources and other production services would be spread so wide outside of that ‘city’ that it would take hours for some to get to work and even longer to deliver the products into the city. The consumer needs would greatly exceed the ability to produce with everyone located so densely while their work being forced to spread miles and miles away from the city.

You are not right, it is not possible for the worlds population to live in a city the size of Texas.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Positing the natural/supernatural dichotomy is an assertion. If you want to use it then prove its valid.No other documents make similar claims.

Have you read the Hindu Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita? They make very similar claims of deities and their behaviors and their wishes.

If you can show me a religion with dozens of prophecies fulfilled hundreds and thousands of years after they were written

I’ve come across no religion that has shown to any quality degree that they have fulfilled prophecies.

I would be interested in hearing about this mathematical impossibility that no one ever ever talks about…

I don’t doubt that you would.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Mathematically of course. He is a mathematician after all. I gathered, could you cite the specific work that he performed.

Yes, “Science Speaks”, it was cited in the quote.

Yes, it is all concentrated into a small space and that is achieved by building up rather than out.

That’s just Manhattan. But it doesn’t make a difference to the argument. I didn’t say everyone would live on a ranch.

You said the entire population could “live” in a space as small as Texas, I dispute that because it is not possible for them to live in a space that small, you could certainly cram them in there but it would be impossible for the worlds population to live in a space that small.

Except I showed you the math. It is clearly possible. Your cherished belief that the world is overpopulated is demonstrably false.

You assume that because the population density would be similar to that of NYC, I agree but NYC is small enough that it can be surrounded by open areas that are used to produce food and other key services, a city the size of Texas that has the population density of NYC is too large to sustain a population as food sources and other production services would be spread so wide outside of that ‘city’ that it would take hours for some to get to work and even longer to deliver the products into the city. The consumer needs would greatly exceed the ability to produce with everyone located so densely while their work being forced to spread miles and miles away from the city.

None of this has anything to do with the bare fact everyone on the planet could live in Texas quite comfortably. Food isn’t grow locally, my kitchen is full of stuff from thousands of miles away. People can work close to their home in large cities without a problem. In NYC average people work and live within an easy commuting distance. You are making stuff up.

You are not right, it is not possible for the worlds population to live in a city the size of Texas.

I am right and I proved it with the math. Everyone could live in Texas just like NYC, LA or other large American cities. If you cannot admit you are wrong even when the math proves it, then why should we take anything you say seriously? You simply believe what you want, no evidence necessary. The math doesn’t lie, you are demonstrably wrong. There is no room for disagreement. The world is not overpopulated nor in any immediate danger of it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Have you read the Hindu Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita? They make very similar claims of deities and their behaviors and their wishes.

Hinduismis a false faith. Christianity is verified as true mathematically. If Christianity is true then all other conflicting faiths are false by definition.

I’ve come across no religion that has shown to any quality degree that they have fulfilled prophecies.

Yet billions of others have. From your inability to admit a mathematical truth contrary to your cherished beliefs in the over population argument. I suspect that it wouldn’t matter if you had or not. That’s the problem with ignoring it when someone proves your position wrong beyond any doubt. Now we know that things like mathematical proof, logic, and evidence do not really matter to you.