People in a democracy hold several views, almost always not in agreement with each other. If one takes literally what you're saying, it implies that religious people should not participate in the decision-making processes. So much for the allegedly freedom-supporting guy here!

By the way, you still haven't answered my question about the "freedom" of stealing and my religious views against it.

The science on the matter is obviously clear, long known and undisputed; if it weren't, it would have been trivial to prove me wrong. Instead, you resort to a vain attempt to disguise legal matters as scientific truth, which is obviously absurd. This reminds me of another vain attempt at confusing matters in a discussion about religion, science and law. It went similarly to this one, mainly in the sense that it ended abruptly after each person's argumentation, or lack thereof, became evident.

If the two options are imposing your detrimental ideology on society and the opposite, then you're right. I still don't see what's wrong with this, honestly, this is how democracy works or should work. Not everybody agrees with everybody else. I think your problem is that when my religious views and science coincide, but they contradict your views, you consider it imposing my views on you. Well, it's not my fault, this is how the world was created. You may refer your complaints to the Creator, but I don't think that will help you much in this case.

Another religious view I hold is that people are allowed to own property, which imposes on others punishment if they steal it. Do you agree with imposing such religious views on others via the state or not?

No, because that would encourage abortion and it imposes sharing the blame for murders of innocent babies of the people that perpetrate such acts, which I want to have no part in. You want to do this, you take the blame, buddy.

Please read again what I posted above, it is obvious that what you're writing makes no sense.

As responded earlier to another comment here, you're free to harm yourself and others, until God says otherwise or the society discovers your deception and the harm you're causing and turns against you.

We're just discussing here, I'm not imposing anything on anyone. Even if I wanted to, I'm not a USA citizen.

I'm not certain what your point is here. A concept being complex does not justify killing humans.

As stated earlier, there is no doubt that zygotes are human beings, regardless of religious doctrine.

If the mother's life is at risk, I would consider it acceptable for her to determine if she considers the baby's life as more valuable than hers. At a glance, the leading cause of maternal mortality seems to be infection, so it looks more likely that the cause is the healthcare system in the USA in combination with societal factors, such as religiosity, poverty etc, than the ban on abortions per se.

Put another way: if you ban childbirth, there won't be any maternal mortality. Does this mean we should campaign against it to protect women?

My previous response remains true, whether you believe in God or not. I'm not forcing anything on anyone, it's the other side that does this, actually. Absurd liberal ideology has taken over the West and imposed itself on societies by legal force. Now you observe the backlash and some of the consequences. If the West survives this, you should thank God that He hasn't abandoned you.

Although I don't see what's wrong with invoking God, because He created the world, this is obviously false. For example, see The Developing Human Being by Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud 7th edition, Elsevier, 2003: "Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2). Regarding homosexuality, apart from the abominable nature of such activity, it's also pure math: encouraging homosexuality will simply lead such societies to extinction.

We cannot prevent people from ruining their bodies, souls and the societies they live in. You are free to do so, until God says otherwise or society discovers your deception and the detrimental effect of your ideology and takes action against you.

running a model and training a model are two different things. Their claim is they _trained_ their model for millions of dollars not billions like their competitors.

but apparently that's what the world runs on

when does the The Butlerian Jihad begin?

This is not true. COVID killed mainly old people with comorbidities, so the end result is roughly that people that would have died soon in Sweden died when COVID spread in 2020, which left much fewer old people susceptible to COVID for the next years. The graphs here suggest that Sweden had low rate of deaths due to COVID for the period 2020-2022 on average, and near the end it seems to be the lowest (or second lowest, depending on statistical error) in the region.

Lack of evidence of what? Who prayed, when, what was the result, who did the study?

You're making the claim that prayer has no effect, so you have the burden of proof. Where's the evidence?

So, you assert that prayers never change anything. The question is actually more serious than the answer I received.

Any evidence for this?