Why do people have sex (apart from for reproduction)?

[Blackwater Babe]

Nazi Germany was operating under atheistic principles, and was about as bigoted as you can get.

On what planet?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The atheists themselves have no base beliefs at all though...

Atheism has no base beliefs outside of non belief in a god but atheists themselves have many more base beliefs. You're projecting the importance of your theological beliefs into atheists. Belief in Christianity may be the central and most important belief to you and many Christian but our nonbelief is not the central tenet to many of us. As stated earlier people tend to base their belief and priorites on things that they believe not things they disbelieve.

 

[Shane Roach]

Atheism has no base beliefs outside of non belief in a god but atheists themselves have many more base beliefs. You're projecting the importance of your theological beliefs into atheists. Belief in Christianity may be the central and most important belief to you and many Christian but our nonbelief is not the central tenet to many of us. As stated earlier people tend to base their belief and priorites on things that they believe not things they disbelieve.

Theism has no base beliefs either. Indeed, no one starts out to answer the question of whether or not there is a god in a vacuum. Comparing atheism to specific religions is a favorite apples-to-oranges tactic of atheists though.

You're basically agreeing here, then trying to come up with some reason why it really doesn't matter that atheists cannot come together to create a system of their own, whereas many other people all throughout history have.

 

[Shane Roach]

Not necessarily. Most atheists are utilitarian also. It's just that for something like - for example - gay marriage - a good utilitarian argument for being AGAINST it cannot be made, and the perceived negative outcomes that Christians point to are either questionably not negative or have been debunked countless times already.

In addition, Christians are also prone to discarding the utilitarian argument and resorting to "well, God said it's bad, so it's bad" logic when the utilitarian argument fails them. In my opinion, that is why they have made such a shambles of the whole issue of gay rights and gay marriage - their attempts at utilitarian argument have failed, and they are left with an assertion backed by the "authority" of their unproven deity, which fewer and fewer people (quite rightly) do not kowtow to anymore.

I've no problem with religious people making an argument for something. It just has to make sense, and be backed up by something more solid than their personal readings of their religious texts.



There's your tendency to overgeneralise letting you down again. You may want to quit while you're behind on that one.

For the n-th time, atheism isn't a base belief about anything other than the matter of the existence of deities. In my experience, atheists are generally utilitarian. Some explicitly acknowledge this (I do, as it's the best description of how I make moral decisions), some do not but appear to operate on such principles anyway.



It depends on the degree of cooperation involved and what precise beliefs are held by those attempting to cooperate.

On the contrary, there is no UTILITARIAN argument FOR gay marriage. And that is a prime example of how atheists form their ethics. It has become cool to promote homosexuality, so now we promote it. Never mind that there has rarely been homosexual marriage anywhere across the face of the earth throughout history. Nevermind the only reason gays want to marry at all is that atheists destroyed the power of the state to enforce a rational marriage contract in the 70's. No, we simply need to have gay marriage because the only reason anyone is against it is because it is religious.

So, since there is no God, why did the religious people have something against it all those years ago? This the atheist dare not answer, because what it points out is that religion and irreligion mean NOTHING. But atheists base their whole self image on the idea that being an atheist says something about their intelligence and their open mindedness. What it really does is highlight the shallowness of their insights, and their self-righteousness. "We are right BECAUSE we are not religious," without a single scintilla of support needed to back the claim.

No utilitarian argument against gay marriage... The only argument I have ever see for it is, "Agree with us you BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT, or you're a BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT. HAHAHAHAHA, we're so cool, shut up bigot. Yay atheism."

 

[Blackwater Babe]

On the contrary, there is no UTILITARIAN argument FOR gay marriage. And that is a prime example of how atheists form their ethics. It has become cool to promote homosexuality, so now we promote it. Never mind that there has rarely been homosexual marriage anywhere across the face of the earth throughout history. Nevermind the only reason gays want to marry at all is that atheists destroyed the power of the state to enforce a rational marriage contract in the 70's. No, we simply need to have gay marriage because the only reason anyone is against it is because it is religious.

So, since there is no God, why did the religious people have something against it all those years ago? This the atheist dare not answer, because what it points out is that religion and irreligion mean NOTHING. But atheists base their whole self image on the idea that being an atheist says something about their intelligence and their open mindedness. What it really does is highlight the shallowness of their insights, and their self-righteousness. "We are right BECAUSE we are not religious," without a single scintilla of support needed to back the claim.

No utilitarian argument against gay marriage... The only argument I have ever see for it is, "Agree with us you BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT, or you're a BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT. HAHAHAHAHA, we're so cool, shut up bigot. Yay atheism."

How about "gay people want it", thats an argument you seem not to have considered.

 

[Gadarene]

On the contrary, there is no UTILITARIAN argument FOR gay marriage. And that is a prime example of how atheists form their ethics. It has become cool to promote homosexuality, so now we promote it. Never mind that there has rarely been homosexual marriage anywhere across the face of the earth throughout history. Nevermind the only reason gays want to marry at all is that atheists destroyed the power of the state to enforce a rational marriage contract in the 70's. No, we simply need to have gay marriage because the only reason anyone is against it is because it is religious.

Er....nope.

There is no good reason to deny it to gay people. Denying people what they want when there is no harm in letting them have what they want frequently causes harm to them (I'd argue in this instance it is actually a need - fulfilment of sexual desires - and not technically a want). And given the prevalence of homosexuals within society, denying them marriage equates to needlessly inflicting harm on a significant number of people within society, thus damaging society as a whole.

Not rocket science.

So, since there is no God, why did the religious people have something against it all those years ago? This the atheist dare not answer, because what it points out is that religion and irreligion mean NOTHING.

What kind of daft question is this? God does not need to exist for the religious to act on the belief that he does. Dear me.

But atheists base their whole self image on the idea that being an atheist says something about their intelligence and their open mindedness. What it really does is highlight the shallowness of their insights, and their self-righteousness. "We are right BECAUSE we are not religious," without a single scintilla of support needed to back the claim.

Nope - I consider my moral standards separate to whether or not I or someone else lives up to them, as do other atheists.

Again, your generalisations fail.

No utilitarian argument against gay marriage... The only argument I have ever see for it is, "Agree with us you BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT, or you're a BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT. HAHAHAHAHA, we're so cool, shut up bigot. Yay atheism."

Then you evidently haven't looked very hard. And again, your tendency to generalise lets you down.

 

[Larry Mondello]

Originally Posted by Shane Roach

On the contrary, there is no UTILITARIAN argument FOR gay marriage. And that is a prime example of how atheists form their ethics. It has become cool to promote homosexuality, so now we promote it. Never mind that there has rarely been homosexual marriage anywhere across the face of the earth throughout history. Nevermind the only reason gays want to marry at all is that atheists destroyed the power of the state to enforce a rational marriage contract in the 70's. No, we simply need to have gay marriage because the only reason anyone is against it is because it is religious.

So, since there is no God, why did the religious people have something against it all those years ago? This the atheist dare not answer, because what it points out is that religion and irreligion mean NOTHING. But atheists base their whole self image on the idea that being an atheist says something about their intelligence and their open mindedness. What it really does is highlight the shallowness of their insights, and their self-righteousness. "We are right BECAUSE we are not religious," without a single scintilla of support needed to back the claim.

No utilitarian argument against gay marriage... The only argument I have ever see for it is, "Agree with us you BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT, or you're a BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT. HAHAHAHAHA, we're so cool, shut up bigot. Yay atheism."
​

How about "gay people want it", thats an argument you seem not to have considered.

Sorry. Someone simply "wanting" something doesn't make it a rational argument.
More of an emotional appeal, like the rash of atheistic anti-God books that came during the past few years. Emotions shouldn't guide formation of laws.

Not to start a gay marriage debate here....

 

[selfinflikted]

On the contrary, there is no UTILITARIAN argument FOR gay marriage. And that is a prime example of how atheists form their ethics. It has become cool to promote homosexuality, so now we promote it. Never mind that there has rarely been homosexual marriage anywhere across the face of the earth throughout history. Nevermind the only reason gays want to marry at all is that atheists destroyed the power of the state to enforce a rational marriage contract in the 70's. No, we simply need to have gay marriage because the only reason anyone is against it is because it is religious.

So, since there is no God, why did the religious people have something against it all those years ago? This the atheist dare not answer, because what it points out is that religion and irreligion mean NOTHING. But atheists base their whole self image on the idea that being an atheist says something about their intelligence and their open mindedness. What it really does is highlight the shallowness of their insights, and their self-righteousness. "We are right BECAUSE we are not religious," without a single scintilla of support needed to back the claim.

No utilitarian argument against gay marriage... The only argument I have ever see for it is, "Agree with us you BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT, or you're a BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT. HAHAHAHAHA, we're so cool, shut up bigot. Yay atheism."

Or, it could be because we are being treated unfairly. But no, that can't be it. Evil atheist agenda, and all.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Sorry. Someone simply "wanting" something doesn't make it a rational argument.
More of an emotional appeal, like the rash of atheistic anti-God books that came during the past few years. Emotions shouldn't guide formation of laws.

Not to start a gay marriage debate here....

Of course emotions should guide law making. If people want something, that is in the power of lawmakers to give them, that will not bring meaningful harm to any non consenting party, you should make it a law.

Lets look at past examples, universal suffrage, womens suffrage, repeal of prohibition, legalisation of pornography... all done pretty much because people wanted them and there was no reason not to give the people what they want.

It's strange, in the current media driven social discussion, people seem to think there needs to be some sort of deeper reason to do things, but if people want something, and there's no negative effect, why on earth shouldn't those with the power to give it to them, give it to them?

Say your kid wants to go to the park across the street. She's done her homework, its a nice day, and you have nothing else planned. Do you go to the park, or do you make the kid deconstruct her reasoning for wanting to go, and debate the semantic meaning of "swings" for 7 hours? Or do you just go to the park?

 

[selfinflikted]

Say your kid wants to go to the park across the street. She's done her homework, its a nice day, and you have nothing else planned. Do you go to the park, or do you make the kid deconstruct her reasoning for wanting to go, and debate the semantic meaning of "swings" for 7 hours? Or do you just go to the park?

What if visiting the park was perceived to be forbidden in the Bible?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

What if visiting the park was perceived to be forbidden in the Bible?

Not wanting to get into the whole debate, but short version...

If your interpretation of the Bible says "don't go to the park", then I guess you'd better not go to the park, and whats more, you should be completely free to decide not to participate in any park going.

But just because you understand the Bible as saying "don't go to the park" doesn't give you any right, at all, to stop people who don't share that understanding from going to the park.

If we were talking about something that unarguably harms others, like murder or arson or stealing, then there's a case to be made for stopping people from doing it, even if they don't see why its wrong. But in a purely religion derived morality, like "Bible sez-dn't go to the park", you have no grounds for stopping anyone who believes there's nothing wrong with going to the park from going to the park.

Of course, you should always be free to try to convinc people that going to the park is wrong. Thats fine. But legislating against park goers, based on nothing more than your personal beliefs, is wrong.

I hope this little analogy helps make my position clearer.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not wanting to get into the whole debate, but short version...

If your interpretation of the Bible says "don't go to the park", then I guess you'd better not go to the park, and whats more, you should be completely free to decide not to participate in any park going.

But just because you understand the Bible as saying "don't go to the park" doesn't give you any right, at all, to stop people who don't share that understanding from going to the park.

If we were talking about something that unarguably harms others, like murder or arson or stealing, then there's a case to be made for stopping people from doing it, even if they don't see why its wrong. But in a purely religion derived morality, like "Bible sez-dn't go to the park", you have no grounds for stopping anyone who believes there's nothing wrong with going to the park from going to the park.

Of course, you should always be free to try to convinc people that going to the park is wrong. Thats fine. But legislating against park goers, based on nothing more than your personal beliefs, is wrong.

I hope this little analogy helps make my position clearer.

Your answer is perfect

 

[JoeyArnold]

Writing a song about something doesn't make it true.

songs and legends reflect the truth that is already there. it does not invent, it discovers. that is the beauty of music. the exploration

 

[JoeyArnold]

I've been happily monogomous since I met my husband, but prior to that, I wasn't. And I don't think I'm a lesser person for having had an active sex life.

what does monogomous mean? anything to do with monopoly?

 

[Larry Mondello]

What if visiting the park was perceived to be forbidden in the Bible?

Not wanting to get into the whole debate, but short version...

If your interpretation of the Bible says "don't go to the park", then I guess you'd better not go to the park, and whats more, you should be completely free to decide not to participate in any park going.

But just because you understand the Bible as saying "don't go to the park" doesn't give you any right, at all, to stop people who don't share that understanding from going to the park.

If we were talking about something that unarguably harms others, like murder or arson or stealing, then there's a case to be made for stopping people from doing it, even if they don't see why its wrong. But in a purely religion derived morality, like "Bible sez-dn't go to the park", you have no grounds for stopping anyone who believes there's nothing wrong with going to the park from going to the park.

Of course, you should always be free to try to convinc people that going to the park is wrong. Thats fine. But legislating against park goers, based on nothing more than your personal beliefs, is wrong.

I hope this little analogy helps make my position clearer.

Your answer is perfect

Nonsensical. As the doubters give themselves high-fives.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Nonsensical. As the doubters give themselves high-fives.

Sorry, what part of it did you find nonsensical?

 

[Mling]

songs and legends reflect the truth that is already there. it does not invent, it discovers. that is the beauty of music. the exploration

I agree. The person I was responding to was actually citing that song as if it proved what he was saying. He's more devoted to the literal truth of that song than some Christians are to the literal truth of the Bible, and he's using it in much the same way.

 

[Mling]

what does monogomous mean? anything to do with monopoly?

Monogamy | Define Monogamy at Dictionary.com

And yes, to the second question. "Mono" means one. Monogamy means having one partner, and monopoly is when one company controls an entire market. Monotony is when there's only one tone present; a monoculture is when a geographic area is filled with one species; a monarchy is a nation ruled by only one person; a monologue is when only one person is speaking, and a monocle is a single corrective eye lens.

 

[Larry Mondello]

Like that 1970s song said,
"Do you wanna make love? Or do you just wanna fool around?
I guarantee it will bring you down if try to fool yourself....."

A slightly more lyrical version of the same false dichotomy that has been touted time and time again during these virginity threads.

Still wrong, and still tiresome having to hear of it.

Gad,
You can have all the sex with anyone and how often you want. Doesn't matter to me.
Am just saying sex without commitment or connection is empty and often makes the person feel worse than he did before.
Been there, done that.

The song aptly illustrates that.

Peter McCann - Do You Wanna Make Love - YouTube



Peter McCann.
Do You Wanna Make Love. 1977.

Sometimes the love rhymes that fill the afternoon lose all their meaning with the rising moon
Hold me and tell me that the words you say are true
Answer the question I must ask of you

CHORUS
Do you wanna make love
Or do you just wanna fool around
I guarantee it will bring you down
If you try and fool yourself
You can take it seriously
Or take it somewhere else

Take all the freedom that a lover will allow
If you feel the feeling that I'm feeling now
Where love goes a fool knows that the hurt can go as deep
Don't make a promise that you cannot keep

If you want to get close to me
You could do it so easily
Is it love that I see when I look in your eyes
or just another empty lie?

CHORUS





So McCann isn't necessarily Christian... so even a non-believer can be right about the hazards of NSA sex.
His views and experiences are dead-on.

How do you define "dead-on" for something that is a different experience for everybody? It matches with your own experience, so that makes it true for everybody? And if somebody says, "that's not my experience," then...it's true anyway and they just don't know it? What makes you the judge?

Originally Posted by groups postings

Am talking about one-night stands, no-strings-attached sex.
Brief encounters.
No real relationship.

As I posted earlier, the song says
Do you wanna make love?
Or do you just wanna fool around?
I guarantee it'll bring you down if you try to fool yourself....

Am not talking about sex in a committed, exclusive relationship, which I enjoyed in my 30s during my LDR with my future wife....
though there are problems with unmarried sex but I'm not getting into that here.... and that's not what I'm talking about....

And yes, boys and girls, I've had experience with casual sex....
​

There are Christians who don't claim the literal truth of the Bible as strongly as you claim the literal, universal and all-encompassing truth of that song lyric.

Writing a song about something doesn't make it true.

songs and legends reflect the truth that is already there. it does not invent, it discovers. that is the beauty of music. the exploration

I agree. The person I was responding to was actually citing that song as if it proved what he was saying. He's more devoted to the literal truth of that song than some Christians are to the literal truth of the Bible, and he's using it in much the same way.

Not a universal, timeless and ageless truth, like The Gospel and Scripture, but a truth just the same....

Your nit-pickiness and over-reaction demonstrates the truth of the song...

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Originally Posted by groups postings
Nonsensical. As the doubters give themselves high-fives.

__________________

Sorry, what part of it did you find nonsensical?

Bump.