Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

So I was like, why is Richard Dawkins talking about Java?

 

[Ornlu]

Atheists won ITT.

Win via wordcount!

 

[womfalcs3]

Atheists won ITT.

I'd rather win in life than in this thread.

 

[Thurible]

indoctrinate
/ɪnˈdɒktrɪneɪt/
verb

1. teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

The sense in which I used the word indoctrinate, which also happens to be the dictionary definition, does not imply coercion. That is also how I was brought up, not coerced, to believe in God uncritically. MTV and Harry Potter were forbidden, because they promoted sex and witchcraft, respectively. Anyway, I turned out pretty normal.

I never said all religious people were fideists.

I had a problem with your word usage because you said

Keep in mind that in a world where religion was gone, those people who were indoctrinated into their religion since childhood would be long dead.

Which implies that religious people do not think critically of their faith. This is why I referenced fideism, or rather a blind faith that values itself over reason which is actually considered a heresy in Catholicism.

You may have been taught to think uncritically about religion, but I haven't. I was always taught at my catholic schools to question everything. I didn't take things at face value and I often asked what the meaning of certain pieces of scripture or tradition were. I thought of how it fit together and what didn't make much sense. One example I can think of is Genesis 5:21-24 where a man named Enoch is described as "having walked with God and being taken by Him". This particular passage is confusing because it indicates that Enoch was taken by God into heaven, but Christians don't believe the gates of heaven were open at this time. You also have a lineage of people with absurd lifespans in Genesis where characters are described as living HUNDREDS of years! One explanation I can think of is that as time goes on from the fall, people are living less and less long to symbolize the departure from grace as we get further away from Adam and Eve. Speaking of Adam and Eve, the creation account in Genesis doesn't make any sense if taken literally. Two people alone cannot propagate an entire species and people kind of just start showing up out of no where like Seth's wife and the people who may set against Cain (so God gave him a mark after the murder of Abel so he may be protected). So we have to think critically about everything and try to take in the context of who was writing this passage, who the audience was, what the culture was like, and what point is getting across.

We'll just agree to disagree. If it happens organically, i.e., without coercion, then it's because there is no longer demand for that way of life. Nothing horrible about that.

It'll always be a way of life for people, and for some it is one of the most important things in life. It's something people cherish and love. I love my faith and I would like to think I would die for the Church and my fellow catholics (though push has not come to shove fortunately).

Dawkins is not pushing an agenda to shut down places of worship. He is merely asking people to think for themselves, mostly those people on the fence. He is not actively trying to convert 'true believers', because he knows it's a fool's errand.

If he is asking people to think critically of faith I would have NO problem with that. However he often frames faith as contrary to reason (people can have both), makes fallacious and false statements about the beliefs of others, and is rude to boot (dialogue only happens with a mutual respect between both parties, mocking the other person just leads to further antagonization and weakens theargument).

Quite self-evident, no?

No.

For the suppression of women's rights, look at Saudi Arabia.

Radical Islam isn't exactly a proper example of how religion affects "women's rights". You are speaking on Sharia law rather than the average muslim.

You also didn't give any specific examples, though I would assume you refer to the clothing, needing a chaperone, polygamy, etc.

For stifling scientific progress, look at banning the heliocentric theory or funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Sigh

Also, if the Church is against science then why does it have an Academy of Science and observatory? The vatican often works with scientists you know.

Also, the question of embryonic stem cell research is of ethics. Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of an unborn human in their earliest stage of life. Being against that doesn't necessitate religion at all.

For bigotry and violence, look at sectarian Sunni-Shia strife in the Middle East or the Israel-Palestine conflict.

You keep putting examples of radical Islam when that isn't a common world view. Also, most wars are caused for secular reasons, such as land and resources or political ideology. At least from Philip's and Axelrod's Encyclopedia of war.

For abusing children, look at frightening them with stories of Hell or female genital mutilation.

Believing in hell isn't child abuse, and I don't know what religion you refer to with the female genital mutilation bit.

The pro-life movement is absolutely a religious movement. That there are exceptions to the rule does not change the fact.

No it isn't. Have you ever heard of the secular pro life movement? https://www.secularprolife.org/

Also, most arguments for the right to life aren't religious. They mainly have to do with the fact that human life biologically begins at conception and that every human at every stage of life has natural rights philosophically. That's it. God isn't invoked here.

 

[Thurible]

Give me an example.

Besides what I said to someone else earlier about his complete misunderstanding of thomistic arguments for faith particularly the "five ways"? Certainly. Let me give you some quotes from his book

"…Judaism: originally a tribal cult of a single fiercely unpleasant God, morbidly obsessed with sexual restrictions, with the smell of charred flesh, with his own superiority over rival gods with the exclusiveness of his chosen desert tribe."

Not only is this comment in extremely bad taste, but it get everything wrong with Jewish law and why they have a covenant with God. There are cultural and theological reasons for certain old jewish laws. They weren't always fair, but they often were about purity and cleanliness. One has to be clean and proper to meet God.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Really?

By the way, he does argue that all religion is bad, not just extremists. "The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.

 

[Jon Neu]

Which implies that religious people do not think critically of their faith.

Religious people do not think critically of their faith, otherwise there wouldn't be religious people. You have two options: to have faith or to not have it.

There is nothing to think about, you can entertain logic for a second just for the sake of not looking too fanatic and dumb, but the plan is always going to be "rationalize that shit and make all the excuses posible so we can still believe this magical tales". You either believe what you read in your magical book of choice, or you don't. You either believe in a magical invisible man of which there isn't any proof of his existence or you don't.

There's literally zero room for deep rational thinking, you just blindly believe or not.

Two people alone cannot propagate an entire species

That's the point of religions: they are made up tales that with the knowledge we have now, we know 100% they are bullshit.

But even by knowing it, there is people who are going to rationalize not being rational so you can still believe in Adam & Eve and the Dinosaurs because "it wasn't meant to be taken literally" or "it was a metaphor" or whatever other bullshit claim that people nowadays do to try to make some damage control for shit that is literally unbelievable and atrociously evil.

 

[Jon Neu]

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Really?

I don't know about the most unpleasant character in fiction, there's a lot of fiction out there so I'm sure there are even more terrible characters written. But everything else is spot on.

That's literally the figure you idolize.

 

[Thurible]

Religious people do not think critically of their faith, otherwise there wouldn't be religious people. You have two options: to have faith or to not have it.

No. There is no debate you are objectively in the wrong here. People can think critically and have faith. There are reasons why I am a catholic, I'm not in it for sh*ts and giggles and I imagine the average religious person isn't in it for that either. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old and the earth 4.6 billion. Sometime in the past came prokaryotic single cell organisms then eukaryotic ones. Then they kept building more and more complex systems and became multucellular. Specializied tissue and organs exist. They adapted to their environment and became diverse creatures. One of these living creatures is now man who has the ability to reason and arguably care altruistically for others. There is a causation for everything and nothing is infinite in this universe. So to tell me that I can't have reason and faith is a flat out lie sir.

 

[Tesseract]

that's dawkins' cynical perspective, he's a loyal atheist with a vendetta to burn

i dunno how you can read the old testament and come away with that description unless yer simply (selectively) quoting scripture with no regard for patterns inherent in the human condition (these are stories after all, let's not forget that)

plenty of religious folk are hypercritical of their faith (ever doubting), i consider myself one of those people

i don't think there's a god (insofar as i'm aware) and believe the universe is indifferent, but i have faith in the great beyond and explore the unknowns through christianity

i also don't believe in free will, so there's that

you make it out to be so simple when it's not

 

[Jon Neu]

People can think critically and have faith.

Not at the same time and not really.

Compartmentalization, you just act like a person with rationality except when you step onto your faith, then you suspend your logical thinking because otherwise you couldn't believe in a magical zombie jew who created the earth in 6 days.

So yeah, you know that 2 + 2 = 4, but you are fanatical enough to suspend your rationality for the sake of having faith.

 

[kiiltz]

if God isn't real then how did jesus walk on water

checkmate

 

[Jon Neu]

i dunno how you can read the old testament and come away with that description

I don't know how can you read it and don't come away with that description.

Well, I know how: being so incredibly selective to forget all the atrocities God makes by only selecting the parts where he talks about "love".

But everything that Dawkins listed is literally there. You can't give a pass to a mass murdered just because he is a hippy.

you make it out to be so simple when it's not

Human imagination isn't simple, it's quite vast.

The biological mechanisms are another story, they are so simple, but reconizing them and admitting that's what's happening it's hard for the people who want to believe no matter what (which is all the people who believe).

 

[Tesseract]

I don't know how can you read it and don't come away with that description.

Well, I know how: being so incredibly selective to forget all the atrocities God makes by only selecting the parts where he talks about "love".

But everything that Dawkins listed is literally there. You can't give a pass to a mass murdered just because he is a hippy.



Human imagination isn't simple, it's quite vast.

The biological mechanisms are another story, they are so simple, but reconizing them and admitting that's what's happening it's hard for the people who want to believe no matter what (which is all the people who believe).

i don't see us resolving this dispute, i wish you good fortune in the wars to come

 

[Ornlu]

i don't see us resolving this dispute, i wish you good fortune in the wars to come

HOW DARE YOU wish someone fortune?!?! Don't you dare invoke that voodoo spiritual witchcraft amongst the towering intellect of these atheist philosophers! Thy false religion must be purged with fire, lest it corrupt our cold, dark nihilism.

 

[Jon Neu]

HOW DARE YOU wish someone fortune?!?! Don't you dare invoke that voodoo spiritual witchcraft amongst the towering intellect of these atheist philosophers! Thy false religion must be purged with fire, lest it corrupt our cold, dark nihilism.

So you believe in the roman Godess Fortuna?

I like the roman/greek Gods myself. They were much cooler than the Abrahamic one(s).

 

[Rentahamster]

No. There is no debate you are objectively in the wrong here. People can think critically and have faith. There are reasons why I am a catholic, I'm not in it for sh*ts and giggles and I imagine the average religious person isn't in it for that either. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old and the earth 4.6 billion. Sometime in the past came prokaryotic single cell organisms then eukaryotic ones. Then they kept building more and more complex systems and became multucellular. Specializied tissue and organs exist. They adapted to their environment and became diverse creatures. One of these living creatures is now man who has the ability to reason and arguably care altruistically for others. There is a causation for everything and nothing is finite in this universe. So to tell me that I can't have reason and faith is a flat out lie sir.

 

[Thurible]

Not at the same time and not really.

Yes you can, I don't know how you can dispute otherwise.

Compartmentalization, you just act like a person with rationality except when you step onto your faith, then you suspend your logical thinking because otherwise you couldn't believe in a magical zombie jew who created the earth in 6 days.

So yeah, you know that 2 + 2 = 4, but you are fanatical enough to suspend your rationality for the sake of having faith.

I'm not a person with dual personalities who forgets his alter ego when doing certain things. Religious people do not forget themselves when they reason, there is no compartmentalization. Let me ask you something, do you have EVIDENCE that people lose rational thinking when looking at the supernatural or vice versa, because right now you are pulling stuff out of your butt (a little vulgar of me to say, but you are being purposefully obtuse).

I don't understand. Are you saying that we are so small it doesn't make sense for God to care about us? Why would size matter?

 

[DragoonKain]

This reminds me one time I posted something on Twitter years back, not even directly to anyone and some pastor of some church somehow found it and replied to it. I actually think it was something pro gay marriage. And he told me it was against God's will or whatever and somehow it devolved into an argument about religion and science and eventually he said "if god doesn't exist, then where did the very first thing in the universe come from, whatever that may be?" and I said maybe it didn't come from anywhere maybe it just already existed. We condition ourselves with the knowledge we've come to understand on earth that everything has to have an origin point but maybe matter/energy always existed in the universe and it was never created at all. There's so much we have to learn about the universe. And he said "that doesn't make sense, everything has to be created by something." And I said well for one you don't know that, but everything has to be created by something? Then who/what created god? And he said "god always existed, he's a supreme being" and I said ah... so everything except god, how convenient that you get to pick and choose. Well if god could have always existed then why not matter or energy? And he said that makes no sense god didn't need to be created and he's a supreme being. And basically he just kept repeating that line and eventually blocked me and said I'm gonna burn in hell.

Fun times.

 

[Halo is Back]

Religion is for people who can't handle the reality of death

 

[Airola]

This is actually seriously really interesting joke, as while the first thought for most would be that it's ridiculous if some god tells someone this small in this huuuuuuge universe to not masturbate. Like, what does he care about that, am I right, lol!

But then there's the other angle to look at it, and it's not even nearly as pleasing for a modern man. To many it's even offensive. The other way to look at that is to understand that we really are small in this huuuuuuuuuge universe, but still god cares about us so we must be pretty damn special to him. And if "don't masturbate" is what he says to us, then that really must be something to avoid if it really is that important for him to say to such small creatures in so big universe.

We could perhaps compare it to DNA or something like that. The size of a cell is really really really small compared to an adult human. Like, it's ridiculously small. And how about the DNA in a cell, or adenine and cytosine in DNA? We aren't able to even examine any of that without complex and advanced technology. We can't see or feel it in any way with our own basic senses. Yet all of that is of great interest to us and we know they are super important to us too. So in that sense the smallness of us just shows how important we actually are if the creator of all things sees it important to take care of us, to instruct us and to even punish us. The smallness of us should make us care even more about our actions and even thoughts if we would just care to look a bit deeper from the initial knee-jerk "lol, it's so stupid to think god would care about if we masturbate or not" reaction.

It's a funny joke, but there really is a lot more to think about in that joke than what you would believe.

 

[Airola]

This reminds me one time I posted something on Twitter years back, not even directly to anyone and some pastor of some church somehow found it and replied to it. I actually think it was something pro gay marriage. And he told me it was against God's will or whatever and somehow it devolved into an argument about religion and science and eventually he said "if god doesn't exist, then where did the very first thing in the universe come from, whatever that may be?" and I said maybe it didn't come from anywhere maybe it just already existed. We condition ourselves with the knowledge we've come to understand on earth that everything has to have an origin point but maybe matter/energy always existed in the universe and it was never created at all. There's so much we have to learn about the universe. And he said "that doesn't make sense, everything has to be created by something." And I said well for one you don't know that, but everything has to be created by something? Then who/what created god? And he said "god always existed, he's a supreme being" and I said ah... so everything except god, how convenient that you get to pick and choose. Well if god could have always existed then why not matter or energy? And he said that makes no sense god didn't need to be created and he's a supreme being. And basically he just kept repeating that line and eventually blocked me and said I'm gonna burn in hell.

Fun times.

Anything in this universe always existing doesn't really make any sense. That "first energy" hasn't been still as a doornail. There must've been some sort of movement in it. And every movement requires some sort of power to make it happen. If you go back to see what caused each single little part of that movement it will become a paradox pretty soon. Or if it really was completely still, there must've been some other force to start that movement. And that force needs a reason to apply the force too. To me it just doesn't make sense at all for there to be some kind of an infinite reaction that just has always been there but suddenly grew into this where there are people who actually can go and think about that moment of that beginning and wonder about more abstract ideas of what might lie beyond that beginning. Infinite reaction seems completely impossible to me because infinity in a reality where a reaction needs a cause is quite a paradoxical thing.

The originator of everything that ever existed to make this universe happen as it now is has to be something that completely transcends all of what is and what has been in this universe. It must transcend space and time and material, everything.

That's one of the reasons I believe it's something like a world of ideas that has brought this up. Ideas don't need space and time at all. Sure, our handling of ideas require both time and space, but the ideas themselves don't need any of that. This is of course like some scifi fantasy, but I thought to bring it up as wouldn't you also say that it's always more interesting to talk about things like this if some example theories are given (like when talking about ufos it's always more interesting if someone cares or dares to put in words what wild things they think about it).

 

[Halo is Back]

Most people here seem to be confusing what atheism is. Being an Atheist dose not mean you KNOW there is no god it simply means you lack the belief in god. I tell people I'm atheist because I have yet to see compelling evidence of a god

 

[Halo is Back]

Are you Christopher Hitchen's bastard son by any chance? Because both of you have the same retarded argument for faith being irrational. Your faith in scientific reasoning is by definition irrational because it's self-defeating. If science declares tomorrow that the possibility of God existing is very much real, would you start to believe in a GOD?

Everyone has a belief system whether you like it or not. You are not enlightened by rationality, you are just another person who firmly believes in their epistemology which happens to be that only scientific reasoning is the answer to the truth, just like Ricardo Dickens was saying on that AlJazeera video that I posted in this thread.

You are not special, frenchie. You are no Descartes, you're just another NPC that happens to fall under the New Atheist umbrella, which is the dumbest breed of atheists to come by in centuries.

No no no. Science is the quest for truth. Science is not the irrational belief we believe in Science because it actually produces fucking results that make mankind better. You can't just clamig something in Science is true. It needs to be peer reviewed and tested over and over again. Science will never be 100% true but it is literally the best system we have in place to explain our natural world. If Science declares God is real tomorrow I would need to read those studies and other Scientists would need to be able to test those experiments themselves. Your lack of understanding what science is is disturbing. You are just like the other desperate theist who claim Science is an irrational belief and a religion without actually seeing the irony in your statement

 

[DragoonKain]

Anything in this universe always existing doesn't really make any sense. That "first energy" hasn't been still as a doornail. There must've been some sort of movement in it. And every movement requires some sort of power to make it happen. If you go back to see what caused each single little part of that movement it will become a paradox pretty soon. Or if it really was completely still, there must've been some other force to start that movement. And that force needs a reason to apply the force too. To me it just doesn't make sense at all for there to be some kind of an infinite reaction that just has always been there but suddenly grew into this where there are people who actually can go and think about that moment of that beginning and wonder about more abstract ideas of what might lie beyond that beginning. Infinite reaction seems completely impossible to me because infinity in a reality where a reaction needs a cause is quite a paradoxical thing.

The originator of everything that ever existed to make this universe happen as it now is has to be something that completely transcends all of what is and what has been in this universe. It must transcend space and time and material, everything.

That's one of the reasons I believe it's something like a world of ideas that has brought this up. Ideas don't need space and time at all. Sure, our handling of ideas require both time and space, but the ideas themselves don't need any of that. This is of course like some scifi fantasy, but I thought to bring it up as wouldn't you also say that it's always more interesting to talk about things like this if some example theories are given (like when talking about ufos it's always more interesting if someone cares or dares to put in words what wild things they think about it).

But even that "originator of everything" that transcends everything had to have some origin, right? And if not, then why can't matter or energy have just already been there? Just existing. People believe the universe starting with the Big Bang, which was a densely hot singularity, but maybe that singularity always existed. Or is just dense energy? Regardless, I don't think it is far fetched to say something could have always been there. Because if we say something had to be the originator, you can keep tracing that back to infinity. What originated the originator? And so on. And if you establish at one point something has to always have existed, otherwise you could trace our origins back to infinity, then why can't that one thing just be something we already know?

 

[Airola]

No no no. Science is the quest for truth. Science is not the irrational belief we believe in Science because it actually produces fucking results that make mankind better.

Does scientific truth necessarily make mankind better?

I would say that for people to really have a better world, we need to both ignore some scientific truths and also refuse to do certain things even though it would be scientifical.
There are a ton of things that have made things way worse for people because there were people who used scientific methods to do heinous things. And sometimes the bad things have come unintentionally too (like pollution and a lot of other environmental problems). It's good that people are using science to fix the problems other people created by using science, but it doesn't wash away the reasons for the problems. And we are likely not living in times where people don't use science for bad or uninentionally cause problems with science anymore.

Scientific method is not there for moral reasons and it doesn't define the morality of the progress it brings. We should not treat science as the savior of the world and humanity as it is completely dependent on the intention of those who use it (and often also dependent on luck too). Treating science as this pure thing that makes things better is to ignore a ton of things it has already ruined.

 

[Airola]

But even that "originator of everything" that transcends everything had to have some origin, right? And if not, then why can't matter or energy have just already been there? Just existing. People believe the universe starting with the Big Bang, which was a densely hot singularity, but maybe that singularity always existed. Or is just dense energy? Regardless, I don't think it is far fetched to say something could have always been there. Because if we say something had to be the originator, you can keep tracing that back to infinity. What originated the originator? And so on. And if you establish at one point something has to always have existed, otherwise you could trace our origins back to infinity, then why can't that one thing just be something we already know?

Of course it doesn't have to have an origin because it's not part of this universe that works through causal reactions.
A matter or energy that has always been there is still subject to that same causality.

 

[Thurible]

But even that "originator of everything" that transcends everything had to have some origin, right? And if not, then why can't matter or energy have just already been there?

But there lies the issue, either there is an infinite regress where everything always was or there was a beginning. If we say that there always was something then it wouldn't be ridiculous to say there is a God if things can exist beyond the finite and have no cause. If the universe has a beginning then something would have had to cause it based on our understanding of physics like mass conservation. Admittedly, this is a problem that only arises from the Big bang theory (but it seems likely due to red shifting). There is a theory that particulates can spawn from vacuums, but it seems likely that the vacuum just isolates already existing particulates to be observed (no vacuum is perfect).

 

[Halo is Back]

Does scientific truth necessarily make mankind better?

I would say that for people to really have a better world, we need to both ignore some scientific truths and also refuse to do certain things even though it would be scientifical.
There are a ton of things that have made things way worse for people because there were people who used scientific methods to do heinous things. And sometimes the bad things have come unintentionally too (like pollution and a lot of other environmental problems). It's good that people are using science to fix the problems other people created by using science, but it doesn't wash away the reasons for the problems. And we are likely not living in times where people don't use science for bad or uninentionally cause problems with science anymore.

Scientific method is not there for moral reasons and it doesn't define the morality of the progress it brings. We should not treat science as the savior of the world and humanity as it is completely dependent on the intention of those who use it (and often also dependent on luck too). Treating science as this pure thing that makes things better is to ignore a ton of things it has already ruined.

Did I say Science was the only good thing and can do no wrong? No I didn't. But yes Science has unquestionably made our lives better. Do you deny the impact on the lives saved by modern medicine? Do you enjoy posting on this site and surfing the web? Has Science led to new technologies, industries and business that never would have existed before? Absolutely. Science has done both good and bad. Take the Atomic bomb for example. Without we may have never discover nuclear energy if it wasn't the push for the government to make a super weapon, not to mention more live would have died on BOTH sides of that weapon was never used. However, it is also a terrible weapon capable of mass destruction. I have never denied that religion never did any good. In the dark ages in Europe the church was the only institute for education for an example.

sorry for all of the spelling and grammar errors I'm typing on my phone

 

[DragoonKain]

Of course it doesn't have to have an origin because it's not part of this universe that works through causal reactions.
A matter or energy that has always been there is still subject to that same causality.

But is it? I don't think we know it is subject to that, there's still so much to learn about the universe and things we think we know are changed all the time. But something like say the force of gravity as far as we know has always existed, so I think it's just one example that there can be "something" that has always existed. Whether it be a force of nature or something material.

But my original point is if you believe in god and believe he has always existed and acknowledge that there is something out there that didn't need an origin point, then I think it would be hypocritical and naive to say that nothing else could have always existed that created the universe. Even if you don't believe in it personally, I think it's ignorant to say that can't happen if one already believes it has happened with a god.

 

[Ornlu]

So you believe in the roman Godess Fortuna?

I like the roman/greek Gods myself. They were much cooler than the Abrahamic one(s).

Romans don't have Gods, bruh. Which Greek God got recycled?

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

No no no. Science is the quest for truth. Science is not the irrational belief we believe in Science because it actually produces fucking results that make mankind better. You can't just clamig something in Science is true. It needs to be peer reviewed and tested over and over again. Science will never be 100% true but it is literally the best system we have in place to explain our natural world. If Science declares God is real tomorrow I would need to read those studies and other Scientists would need to be able to test those experiments themselves. Your lack of understanding what science is is disturbing. You are just like the other desperate theist who claim Science is an irrational belief and a religion without actually seeing the irony in your statement

No no no. Science is the quest for truth. Science is not the irrational belief we believe in Science because it actually produces fucking results that make mankind better. You can't just clamig something in Science is true. It needs to be peer reviewed and tested over and over again. Science will never be 100% true but it is literally the best system we have in place to explain our natural world. If Science declares God is real tomorrow I would need to read those studies and other Scientists would need to be able to test those experiments themselves. Your lack of understanding what science is is disturbing. You are just like the other desperate theist who claim Science is an irrational belief and a religion without actually seeing the irony in your statement

 

[Taxexemption]

Masturbating to pornography cheapens sex. We should strive not to want to use other people's bodies for pleasure, but have an authentic relationship with them. Viewing pornography is detrimental to that. It helps us see people as objects rather than individuals deserving of love and affection. I believe most societal problems could be solved if people only had sex inside of marriage, and if we stopped letting people get divorced all willy nilly. I have come to this belief after careful study during my 7 years of being atheist/agnostic, having watched hundreds of hours of pro-atheist content like the atheist experience and listening to various atheist podcasts, and having watched all of Richard Dawkins documentaries that he was in, and reading most of his books.


People should not be comodifying their bodies like is done in pornography, and we should not be paying for them to do so, and we should not feel good about consuming that content if we do. The closest and most vulnerable physically, emotionally, and in any other way we can be is when we are in a sexual embrace. For people to treat that as something that is bought and paid for like groceries or cars is disgusting. We could solve most of societies problems by getting sex right, that is sex should only happen in the context of marriage. Anything else should be viewed as disgusting and morally wrong. It all starts with masturbation. If you can get people to view sex differently, you can change the world for the better, you can fix most of the problems we have.


Most of our problems are caused by bad relationships, that is people using sex for pleasure with people they don't otherwise like except that they can use them the way they would use a sex doll, and while not meaning to do so they bring new life into this world with someone they don't want to be with. You get people to stop doing this, you stop there from being a lot of unwanted kids and broken meaningless relationships, you save the world.

 

[Halo is Back]

Got a rebuttal for my response? Or will this die with Tom?

 

[Halo is Back]

Masturbating to pornography cheapens sex. We should strive not to want to use other people's bodies for pleasure, but have an authentic relationship with them. Viewing pornography is detrimental to that. It helps us see people as objects rather than individuals deserving of love and affection. I believe most societal problems could be solved if people only had sex inside of marriage, and if we stopped letting people get divorced all willy nilly. I have come to this belief after careful study during my 7 years of being atheist/agnostic, having watched hundreds of hours of pro-atheist content like the atheist experience and listening to various atheist podcasts, and having watched all of Richard Dawkins documentaries that he was in, and reading most of his books.


People should not be comodifying their bodies like is done in pornography, and we should not be paying for them to do so, and we should not feel good about consuming that content if we do. The closest and most vulnerable physically, emotionally, and in any other way we can be is when we are in a sexual embrace. For people to treat that as something that is bought and paid for like groceries or cars is disgusting. We could solve most of societies problems by getting sex right, that is sex should only happen in the context of marriage. Anything else should be viewed as disgusting and morally wrong. It all starts with masturbation. If you can get people to view sex differently, you can change the world for the better, you can fix most of the problems we have.


Most of our problems are caused by bad relationships, that is people using sex for pleasure with people they don't otherwise like except that they can use them the way they would use a sex doll, and while not meaning to do so they bring new life into this world with someone they don't want to be with. You get people to stop doing this, you stop there from being a lot of unwanted kids and broken meaningless relationships, you save the world.

As someone who really likes porn and the female body I can confirm this is BS. I have the the upmost respect for women but more importantly I want a good relationship with a woman who also cares about me. I could care less about fucking random bitches. If anything I develop stronger feelings after having sex

 

[Taxexemption]

As someone who really likes porn and the female body I can confirm this is BS. I have the the upmost respect for women but more importantly I want a good relationship with a woman who also cares about me. I could care less about fucking random bitches. If anything I develop stronger feelings after having sex

After having sex or masturbating? If you have sex with someone, it's normal you would develop feelings, after all you experienced a moment of incredible vulnerability with them. We are designed to bond with a partner. You want someone who cares about you, that's really great. Do you think masturbating to other women helps that? Why would you want to be vulnerable with a lot of people, how well do you get to know someone before sex?


Also, do you think it's helpful for any women you have sex with, to cause them to feel close to you through the sexual embrace when marriage is not likely? Do you think that's helpful for any future marriage they might have?

 

[Halo is Back]

After having sex or masturbating?

-I don't understand this question. After what?

Do you think masturbating to other women helps that?

-No, but neither dose it hurt it, or anyone what I do in the privacy of my home.


Why would you want to be vulnerable with a lot of people, how well do you get to know someone before sex?

-I already said I don't want a lot of sexual partners so I don't know where you got that from. Idk I don't have a standard for when I have sex with someone. I just let it happen naturally.


Also, do you think it's helpful for any women you have sex with, to cause them to feel close to you through the sexual embrace when marriage is not likely?

-How am I supposed to know marriage is not likely yet? I don't engage in relationships with people where I know dating them wont work out unless I am madly in love with them. Marriage is the final step, dating is the first. If girls aren't looking for a serious relationship I don't talk to them but you got to learn to walk before you run. Rushing into a marriage is a bad idea.


Do you think that's helpful for any future marriage they might have?

-Why do you think it would be unhelpful? Sex and masturbation is good for your health and wellbeing as long as you are responsible and practice safe sex.

 

[Taxexemption]

You said you have stronger feelings after having sex, and that what I said was BS. It was unclear whether you meant you have stronger feelings for women, after having sex with them, or after masturbating to pornography. One of these things makes sense to me, and the other doesn't.


As for why having pre-marital sex would be unhelpful, you are incredibly vulnerable during sex. It's not an everyday activity like brushing your teeth, it's something you are likely to remember, as well as your partner. So it's not going to be helpful to have a bunch of people in your background that you got that vulnerable with and will be thinking about. For women I think it's worse, as there is an added element of danger. After all, men are on average stronger than women, and so they are putting themselves in more physical danger than men are when they choose to have sex.


As for masturbation, aside of my previous arguments, how many women in porn are sex trafficked? How many are going to be able to find stable partners after a lifetime of being used as a human sex doll and everyone being able to lookup this past that they have? By masturbating to pornography you are participating in an industry that ruins what could be normal lives and profits off of the misery of others. Normal people with two parents who love them don't grow up and decide "I'd like to be extremely vulnerable on film that can never be deleted from the internet for what is a relatively small amount of money and where my ability to profit will go to zero in a few years if I'm not doing the sickest stuff imaginable." This is an industry that chews people up and spits them out.

 

[Halo is Back]

You said you have stronger feelings after having sex, and that what I said was BS. It was unclear whether you meant you have stronger feelings for women, after having sex with them, or after masturbating to pornography. One of these things makes sense to me, and the other doesn't.


As for why having pre-marital sex would be unhelpful, you are incredibly vulnerable during sex. It's not an everyday activity like brushing your teeth, it's something you are likely to remember, as well as your partner. So it's not going to be helpful to have a bunch of people in your background that you got that vulnerable with and will be thinking about. For women I think it's worse, as there is an added element of danger. After all, men are on average stronger than women, and so they are putting themselves in more physical danger than men are when they choose to have sex.


As for masturbation, aside of my previous arguments, how many women in porn are sex trafficked? How many are going to be able to find stable partners after a lifetime of being used as a human sex doll and everyone being able to lookup this past that they have? By masturbating to pornography you are participating in an industry that ruins what could be normal lives and profits off of the misery of others. Normal people with two parents who love them don't grow up and decide "I'd like to be extremely vulnerable on film that can never be deleted from the internet for what is a relatively small amount of money and where my ability to profit will go to zero in a few years if I'm not doing the sickest stuff imaginable." This is an industry that chews people up and spits them out.

Thats is where you are dead wrong my friend. First of all, human sex trafficking and a legal controlled porn industry are two vastly different things and you know this don't be pulling out straw man arguments. Second, amateur porn has never been more popular and most of the time it is between two people in a consenting relationship wanting to share their intimacy with the world that is their choice just like it is any woman's or man choice to be involved with a legal porn operation and they can opt out when ever they want to.


As for your first question I develop more feelings after sex not masturbation obviously.


And no I don't believe having pre-material sex is inherently wrong. Also, lets be honest here, you act as if sex is some terrible traumatic experience when its not. I would never advise people to fuck randoms or prostitutes. Sex is so much better when it is with someone you like and more often than not you will have sex with people you like. We are biologically driven to have sex to carry on our offspring wether we are married or not.


Let me ask you something, have you ever had sex?

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Got a rebuttal for my response? Or will this die with Tom?

I'm not polemic, just a dude who's curious about the world. You do you, my friend.

#HaloInfinite2020

 

[Halo is Back]

I'm not polemic, just a dude who's curious about the world. You do you, my friend.

#HaloInfinite2020

Hey man I respect your beliefs. Im not some asshole atheist. I have had many good discussions with Christians at my work place. I just don't like it when people call science a "religion", sure some people blindly follow it and believe any study without actually reading it but any scientific study or belief is always open for room to be improved and challenged.


( I always thought you were a Playstation guy)

 

[Taxexemption]

Thats is where you are dead wrong my friend. First of all, human sex trafficking and a legal controlled porn industry are two vastly different things and you know this don't be pulling out straw man arguments. Second, amateur porn has never been more popular and most of the time it is between two people in a consenting relationship wanting to share their intimacy with the world that is their choice just like it is any woman's or man choice to be involved with a legal porn operation and they can opt out when ever they want to.


As for your first question I develop more feelings after sex not masturbation obviously.


And no I don't believe having pre-material sex is inherently wrong. Also, lets be honest here, you act as if sex is some terrible traumatic experience when its not. I would never advise people to fuck randoms or prostitutes. Sex is so much better when it is with someone you like and more often than not you will have sex with people you like. We are biologically driven to have sex to carry on our offspring wether we are married or not.


Let me ask you something, have you ever had sex?

Sex traffickers produce pornography, it's a thing that happens. It happens in the US, even though you can make pornography legally, and even though there is a lot of amateur porn. I don't want to give away my exact location, but the city I live in recently had sex trafficking ring broken up where pornography was being produced for the internet. It's also happened in several cities close to where I live. I am in California, which a lot of people don't know, but human trafficking is a huge problem here.


Even if human trafficking to produce porn wasn't the problem, the normalization of sex outside of marriage contributes to a culture where people are okay with prostitution, and then you get back to the same issue where we have plenty of prostitutes who are slaves who are being sex trafficked.


Pre-marital sex is wrong. People don't plan to, but they do form relationships for sex that result in kids they don't intend to have, with people they don't want to have kids with. If you are having sex there is a chance of creating human life, and you shouldn't be doing this unless you accept that and will take responsibility.


I'm not saying it's traumatic. I'm saying it's weird and generally a bad idea that you would get extremely vulnerable with someone outside the confines of a committed relationship, especially if this is a regular part of your life, trying to find new people you don't really know that well to have sex with. Do you deny that you are vulnerable during sex? Do you make yourself extremely vulnerable all the time in other contexts?


I have not had sex. I'm in my 30's, have a college education, and during both the times I was religious and the times I was not, I never really bought into the idea that it was okay to have sex with someone you would not marry if that sex resulted in pregnancy. At first this was sort of a superstition, but the more I've studied the issue the more I'm convinced this is one of the biggest problems our society faces.


We live in a culture where people will vow in front of their family, and a God they supposedly believe in that they will love someone till death, and they will do this three or four times with different people and no one dying. We live in a culture that treats the most intimate experience you can have with another person as a trivial commodity.


You aren't going to die from not having sex. Yeah, you have a biological urge. So what? That doesn't say anything about whether or not you act on it is right or wrong. The mainstream culture glorifies having sex with random people and getting a high number count.

 

[Kusanagi2086]

You wanted militant atheism to be defined, well, this defines it.

But really that's just, like, your opinion man. Pretty bold and arrogant of you to claim it's mythology.

How is it not a mythology? There is nothing inherently more believable in the Bible than in Norse mythology or the Illiad.

Where do you draw the line? God is okay, but claim you saw a ghost or an angel and everyone thinks you're a loon.

Yeah here in Scandinavia we used to believe in a dude that wielded a hammer called Thor and other weirdos before Christianity came to Scandinavia.

Now we are watching a interpretation of said dude in theaters fighting aliens with a hammer.

People back in the day decided that our kings somehow was blessed by the christian gods and then goodbye northern gods hello Jesus.

Primitive humans deciding since they could not explain something then decides something is divine because reasons, was deluded but the bigger delusion is that we are fighting about religion today.

Many things that were unexplainable back then is not anymore with the age of science.

Imagine going back in time showing someone during the the beginnings of Christianity an iPhone with an illustration of Jesus on it and we would today read about the holy relic that showed the image of Jesus on it.

The book of the holy relic the traveler called THE IPHONE chapter one verse 1

 

[Halo is Back]

Sex traffickers produce pornography, it's a thing that happens. It happens in the US, even though you can make pornography legally, and even though there is a lot of amateur porn. I don't want to give away my exact location, but the city I live in recently had sex trafficking ring broken up where pornography was being produced for the internet. It's also happened in several cities close to where I live. I am in California, which a lot of people don't know, but human trafficking is a huge problem here.


Even if human trafficking to produce porn wasn't the problem, the normalization of sex outside of marriage contributes to a culture where people are okay with prostitution, and then you get back to the same issue where we have plenty of prostitutes who are slaves who are being sex trafficked.


Pre-marital sex is wrong. People don't plan to, but they do form relationships for sex that result in kids they don't intend to have, with people they don't want to have kids with. If you are having sex there is a chance of creating human life, and you shouldn't be doing this unless you accept that and will take responsibility.


I'm not saying it's traumatic. I'm saying it's weird and generally a bad idea that you would get extremely vulnerable with someone outside the confines of a committed relationship, especially if this is a regular part of your life, trying to find new people you don't really know that well to have sex with. Do you deny that you are vulnerable during sex? Do you make yourself extremely vulnerable all the time in other contexts?


I have not had sex. I'm in my 30's, have a college education, and during both the times I was religious and the times I was not, I never really bought into the idea that it was okay to have sex with someone you would not marry if that sex resulted in pregnancy. At first this was sort of a superstition, but the more I've studied the issue the more I'm convinced this is one of the biggest problems our society faces.


We live in a culture where people will vow in front of their family, and a God they supposedly believe in that they will love someone till death, and they will do this three or four times with different people and no one dying. We live in a culture that treats the most intimate experience you can have with another person as a trivial commodity.


You aren't going to die from not having sex. Yeah, you have a biological urge. So what? That doesn't say anything about whether or not you act on it is right or wrong. The mainstream culture glorifies having sex with random people and getting a high number count.

Well I had a huge rebuttal to your post but it got deleted and I don't think its worth typing all that up for such a silly argument so I will end on this because I have to study.

1. Its not the porn industry's fault there is sex trafficking. Banning all porn because of this is like saying lets bad all alcohol because people die from it and abuse it. Weak argument.

2. If you actually did any research you would know its been proven time and time again that abstinence before marriage produce more unwanted pregnancies than safe sex education.

3. Non Pre-marital sex has been pushed by the Catholic church for hundreds of years yet prostitution still remains.

4. Maybe instead of talking out of your ass about sex your should actually give it a try and experience it for yourself with a cute girl you like. I promise you will not become some creepy rapist or a regular to prostitution

 

[Kusanagi2086]

Sex traffickers produce pornography, it's a thing that happens. It happens in the US, even though you can make pornography legally, and even though there is a lot of amateur porn. I don't want to give away my exact location, but the city I live in recently had sex trafficking ring broken up where pornography was being produced for the internet. It's also happened in several cities close to where I live. I am in California, which a lot of people don't know, but human trafficking is a huge problem here.


Even if human trafficking to produce porn wasn't the problem, the normalization of sex outside of marriage contributes to a culture where people are okay with prostitution, and then you get back to the same issue where we have plenty of prostitutes who are slaves who are being sex trafficked.


Pre-marital sex is wrong. People don't plan to, but they do form relationships for sex that result in kids they don't intend to have, with people they don't want to have kids with. If you are having sex there is a chance of creating human life, and you shouldn't be doing this unless you accept that and will take responsibility.


I'm not saying it's traumatic. I'm saying it's weird and generally a bad idea that you would get extremely vulnerable with someone outside the confines of a committed relationship, especially if this is a regular part of your life, trying to find new people you don't really know that well to have sex with. Do you deny that you are vulnerable during sex? Do you make yourself extremely vulnerable all the time in other contexts?


I have not had sex. I'm in my 30's, have a college education, and during both the times I was religious and the times I was not, I never really bought into the idea that it was okay to have sex with someone you would not marry if that sex resulted in pregnancy. At first this was sort of a superstition, but the more I've studied the issue the more I'm convinced this is one of the biggest problems our society faces.


We live in a culture where people will vow in front of their family, and a God they supposedly believe in that they will love someone till death, and they will do this three or four times with different people and no one dying. We live in a culture that treats the most intimate experience you can have with another person as a trivial commodity.


You aren't going to die from not having sex. Yeah, you have a biological urge. So what? That doesn't say anything about whether or not you act on it is right or wrong. The mainstream culture glorifies having sex with random people and getting a high number count.

Not judging you for standing up for your principles but you trying to educate others on sex when you have not even experienced it, is like me educating an f-16 pilot on how to fly without any flight experience whatsoever.

 

[Taxexemption]

Well I had a huge rebuttal to your post but it got deleted and I don't think its worth typing all that up for such a silly argument so I will end on this because I have to study.

1. Its not the porn industry's fault there is sex trafficking. Banning all porn because of this is like saying lets bad all alcohol because people die from it and abuse it. Weak argument.

2. If you actually did any research you would know its been proven time and time again that abstinence before marriage produce more unwanted pregnancies than safe sex education.

3. Non Pre-marital sex has been pushed by the Catholic church for hundreds of years yet prostitution still remains.

4. Maybe instead of talking out of your ass about sex your should actually give it a try and experience it for yourself with a cute girl you like. I promise you will not become some creepy rapist or a regular to prostitution

1: That's a strawman, I did not advocate banning porn. I'm more arguing that it is a bad thing, not that the government should outlaw it. The porn industry is involved in normalizing things that should not be normal though, and they do have some blame for the current state of things.


2: Abstinence before marriage produces unwanted pregnancies? You mean abstinence only sex education. I'm not arguing for abstinence only education, but abstinence should be encouraged, women don't get pregnant from abstinence.


Also, I'm not really convinced on sex education though I think kids should get it. All of my young cousins got kicked out of their sex ed classes for cracking jokes, and they all swear "The pullout method is 99% effective so there is no need for condoms." One of them swears that even after knocking up his gf at the age of 17.


3: I think you worded this incorrectly, but people do things knowing they are wrong. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach what is right. Maybe there is a better way to teach people, or maybe it is the case that even being taught the correct beliefs a lot of people will choose to do the wrong thing.


4: I am convinced it is morally wrong to have sex outside of marriage. I will do no such thing.

 

[Taxexemption]

Not judging you for standing up for your principles but you trying to educate others on sex when you have not even experienced it, is like me educating an f-16 pilot on how to fly without any flight experience whatsoever.

I can see what happens to other people, and I can understand it intellectually. I see cases where men impregnate women they are dating with no thought of whether they will marry, decide to get married or not, and create a bad situation as there was no prior commitment but instead a rushed decision after the fact. They didn't intend marriage, they were just having fun. Or maybe the man was having fun and the women was thinking of marriage, neither of them understanding what was going to or likely to happen until long after the fact. It's not just about the act itself, it's about the fact that this is the only act that you might do to create new life in this world, and thus it is a matter that inherently deals with morality. If you decide to do anything but be two parents who take care of their son or daughter together in a loving relationship you will likely create a person who has bad life outcomes, who will live a life of struggle, and will have contributed greatly to the amount of human misery that exists in this world.


I may not be an F-16 pilot but I can be aware that doing certain things in an F-16 may be problematic.

 

[Halo is Back]

1: That's a strawman, I did not advocate banning porn. I'm more arguing that it is a bad thing, not that the government should outlaw it. The porn industry is involved in normalizing things that should not be normal though, and they do have some blame for the current state of things.


2: Abstinence before marriage produces unwanted pregnancies? You mean abstinence only sex education. I'm not arguing for abstinence only education, but abstinence should be encouraged, women don't get pregnant from abstinence.




Also, I'm not really convinced on sex education though I think kids should get it. All of my young cousins got kicked out of their sex ed classes for cracking jokes, and they all swear "The pullout method is 99% effective so there is no need for condoms." One of them swears that even after knocking up his gf at the age of 17.


3: I think you worded this incorrectly, but people do things knowing they are wrong. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach what is right. Maybe there is a better way to teach people, or maybe it is the case that even being taught the correct beliefs a lot of people will choose to do the wrong thing.


4: I am convinced it is morally wrong to have sex outside of marriage. I will do no such thing.

1. You sure sound like you want to ban it, you blame it for the world's evils.

2. That is the same thing bro and you literally are. You blamed all of the world's troubles for pre-marital sex and porn and its laughable. And yes there is hard data to prove this. Your feelings do not trump hard data.


3. You argued that " the normalization of sex outside of marriage contributes to a culture where people are okay with prostitution," How do you even know this? Do you have any proof for this? I stated that because sex after marriage WAS the norm back then yet they still had prostitution.

4. I respect you discipline but I promise you man there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage. Plenty of people have good relationships and marriages despite it. You are not a bad person I can tell, and I promise you it won't make you a bad person considering you level of self control which is very impressive might I add.

 

[Halo is Back]

4: I am convinced it is morally wrong to have sex outside of marriage. I will do no such thing.

Why do you even view it as morally wrong? What is sooooooo wrong about experiencing the most natural urge all animals have? Is it because some people got pregnant? Dude I have had sex with 4 different women and no babies to show for and that's because I actually was responsible with sex. Having sex before marriage has not corrupted my poor soul. Also, I find it funny that you think pre-marital sex leads to a normalization of prostitution, I bet you $100 if you went up to a bunch of random college students at your university and asked if they advocate for prostitution most would say no.

 

[Taxexemption]

1. You sure sound like you want to ban it, you blame it for the world's evils.

2. That is the same thing bro and you literally are. You blamed all of the world's troubles for pre-marital sex and porn and its laughable. And yes there is hard data to prove this. Your feelings do not trump hard data.


3. You argued that " the normalization of sex outside of marriage contributes to a culture where people are okay with prostitution," How do you even know this? Do you have any proof for this? I stated that because sex after marriage WAS the norm back then yet they still had prostitution.

4. I respect you discipline but I promise you man there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage. Plenty of people have good relationships and marriages despite it. You are not a bad person I can tell, and I promise you it won't make you a bad person considering you level of self control which is very impressive might I add.

1: Regardless that's not the conversation we are having. I do blame it for a lot of the evils in the world, but I haven't fully considered whether banning it is the correct thing to do so I don't advocate that.


2: To tell people that it's best to be abstinent is not abstinence only sex education. I'm fine with kids knowing about condoms, and STD's. I'm also fine with them explaining about "The Pill" as long as they also explain that it's a carcinogen and may cause women to be temporarily attracted to men they will not be attracted to when they are off of it because of the extreme hormone changes. Abstinence only sex education is where they literally don't teach kids about all of the possibilities, I'm not for that. I think kids should be given knowledge of whats out there, but then encouraged to do the morally correct thing.


3: Could it be any other way? If you think sex outside of marriage is fine, what possibly could be objectionable about prostitution? Do you object to prostitution? On what grounds?

Why do you even view it as morally wrong? What is sooooooo wrong about experiencing the most natural urge all animals have? Is it because some people got pregnant? Dude I have had sex with 4 different women and no babies to show for and that's because I actually was responsible with sex. Having sex before marriage has not corrupted my poor soul. Also, I find it funny that you think pre-marital sex leads to a normalization of prostitution, I bet you $100 if you went up to a bunch of random college students at your university and asked if they advocate for prostitution most would say no.

I don't know anyone who is single that has sex responsibly. If anyone I personally know begins to tell me about their sex life, I start asking questions about their use of birth control. I don't know anyone that uses condoms. The pullout method is very popular. Some women use birth control pills but that changes their hormones and effects who they are attracted to, in addition to it being a class 1 carcinogen. You also won't know if she decides to stop taking the pill because she likes you and wants you to be the father of her children, or if she just plain forgets.


The same way they don't listen when the church teaches them to be abstinent, they don't listen when the teacher tells them to put a rubber on. They have selfish desires and will make excuses or hope that things work out, or assume they can talk the girl into an abortion, or they don't even think about it at all. She might even be planning to have an abortion until there is actually a new life growing inside her and she begins to feel morally conflicted.


My biggest concern is pregnancy, which is always a risk when having sex. There is also the possibility of eradicating STD's or stopping the spread of them if we decreased our number of sexual partners. Aside of that I think that the more partners you have the worse your chances of having a good marriage are. As I understand it the more sexual partners you have, the more likely you are to get divorced. If that is the case you are possibly making other peoples future relationships worse. During sex you are extremely vulnerable emotionally and otherwise, this unique experience serves to bond people together. I think doing it all the time and with lots of people ruins your ability to have a deep and authentic relationship. After all, you have the memory of all the people you were that close with before, by the time you hit some certain number of people it really can't be all that special can it?

 

[Kusanagi2086]

I can see what happens to other people, and I can understand it intellectually. I see cases where men impregnate women they are dating with no thought of whether they will marry, decide to get married or not, and create a bad situation as there was no prior commitment but instead a rushed decision after the fact. They didn't intend marriage, they were just having fun. Or maybe the man was having fun and the women was thinking of marriage, neither of them understanding what was going to or likely to happen until long after the fact. It's not just about the act itself, it's about the fact that this is the only act that you might do to create new life in this world, and thus it is a matter that inherently deals with morality. If you decide to do anything but be two parents who take care of their son or daughter together in a loving relationship you will likely create a person who has bad life outcomes, who will live a life of struggle, and will have contributed greatly to the amount of human misery that exists in this world.


I may not be an F-16 pilot but I can be aware that doing certain things in an F-16 may be problematic.

That's why we have condoms if you were to lazy to put one on then be a man and accept the responsibility if she becomes pregnant.

I grew up in what many would consider a liberal society even though Norway is far more conservative regarding sex than other Scandinavian countries and my family was religious and believe many of the same things you do.

I however traveled the world and lived in a city which to you must sound like a nightmare Berlin which was uber liberal and sex was not a big deal at all.

I personally don't think sex is that big of a deal it's completely natural and I do not find porn very interesting since the real thing is quite different, and I will agree porn has created a messed up perception of sex.