If atheism is so enlightened...

Prof. Its good to see a moderate, and reasonable, atheist take a good hard look at something. Appreciate the reminder.

That being said, it stands to reason that the more babies are fathered, the more chance for mutation you get (not alays good ones mind you). I know plenty of nerds with children, and plenty of jocks with children. I know plenty of both who are both good fathers, and plenty of both who have absconded on their parental roles.

The later being important, whatever genes we are born with, statistics bare out that whether we are well rounded, educated, and successful - happy even - has a lot to do with good parenting. Those who worship promiscuity and justify it with evolution are missing the point of evolution and morality entirely. I don't think any particulatr faith group has good and bad parenting cornered however.

 

This is amusing. In the Wikipedia thread you state the American conservative stands for integrity and dignity.

Sorry, however I do have issues with people pursuing the physical satisfaction of a sexual relationship, without pursuing the emotional aspect of it. I have done that before, and have absolutely no intentions of returning. I am fine with female friends. However I am not going to venture into the physical arena without the cargo that goes with it. There are plenty of guys out there who view such things are positive and women little more than a piece of ass (such as yourself), I however have a higher regard for people.

A message inspired by God:

So familiar and overwhelmingly warm
This one, this form I hold now.
Embracing you, this reality here,
This one, this form I hold now, so
Wide eyed and hopeful.
Wide eyed and hopefully wild.

We barely remember what came before this precious moment,
Choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside...
This body holding me, reminding me that I am not alone in
This body makes me feel eternal. All this pain is an illusion.

We barely remember, who or what came before this precious moment.
We are choosing to be here, right now. Hold on, stay inside...
This holy reality, this holy experience. Choosing to be here in...

This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal all this pain is an illusion.

Alive... I...

In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in...

This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal all this pain is an illusion.

Twirling 'round with this familiar parabol.
Spinning, weaving 'round each new experience.
Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this
Chance to be alive and breathing,
A chance to be alive and breathing.

This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember; we are eternal,
All this pain is an illusion.
- Parabol/Parabola
http://youtu.be/_z2O289Jemo

 

I do, integrity refers to honesty. If two people are both aware that they are not yet certain the relationship is long term, but neither has a problem with having sex without strings attached, then there's no lack of integrity, because there's no dishonesty involved.

I would never lie to a woman to get her to have sex with me, and never have. The times when I have had sex where no strings were attached, both parties were aware of this, and I've never lied and told a girl that we were "dating" just so she'd have sex with me.

Well that fine - no one's forcing you to do anything, but you haven't made a real argument for why it's "wrong", you just state that as fact and go from there. And it sounds like you're just speaking from lack of understanding more than anything.

No, you really don't. You're just under the (false) impression that if two people have sex without strings attached, that you're "disrespecting" that person (or vice versa)- but you're not, unless you lied to her in order to get her in bed with you (or vice versa). And that impression is false and purely emotion-based

I've probably made women feel more special, even those with whom I never had a long-term relationship with, than the women you've actually tried to date long term,. Not to get personal, but you mentioned leaving a date of yours out of town just because you were angry that she wouldn't commit to dating you - as if she's under some kind of obligation - - she isn't obligated to be your girlfriend just because you spent $100 on her - you should've waited till you knew her desires before spending that kind of money on her.

Again you're assuming that finding true love, and having sex without strings attached - are mutually exclusive goals, which they aren't. If a person is single and dating - their ultimate goal may be to find that special person - but while they're dating and trying to find the right person, they may end up having sex with people with whom a long-term relationship does not happen, you've made no argument for why this is "wrong" or "disrespectful" if there was no dishonesty on the part of either person.

And even if it is not a long-term relationship, you can still treat the girl like a princess not just a "piece of ass". And likewise, there are husband and wives who've been married for years and the husband treats her like sh*t".

Plus a person who is married is still "looking for a piece of ass" - if they weren't interested in "getting a piece of ass" - they'd just remain close friends. Sex and love are really two separate things. A "true love" is really just a very close relationship, who you also have sex with. Some close relationships play tennis together, some do not. Love is totally separate from sex.

Oh and btw, sex outside of marriage is not mentioned in the Bible, before you get to that. That's a belief that some churches hold, but it is not mentioned explicitly - the only sin mentioned in the Bible is adultery or lusting after another man's wife. You assume everyone who is pro-religion is some kind of fundie but they're not, my views on religion are similar to those of the Founders, I believe it is an important cultural institution which should be preserved, not a 100% literal belief system.

 

Nope. I wasn't angry, however I found it interesting that her motives changed.

After 5pm I am not longer paid to put up with anyone's (*)(*)(*)(*). If someone wants to use me for a ride and an admission fee, thats cool. But hopefully she found a ride with the coke heads she wanted to score some nice cocaine from. But I suppose I am supposed to respect that as well?

Sure it is.
http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html

 

According to this warped logic, Latin American Catholics and Fundamentalist Mormons should be the most evolutionarily advanced.
No, just because a species breeds out of control does not make it evolutionary higher. If that was the case, guinea pigs would get a place of honor.

Evolutionary superiority often has more to do with human subjectiveness. We usually only talk of evolutionary inferiority when the population of one species is being displaced by another. By this standard, humans of european ethnicity are the inferior because of their collective political stupidity, at least within the context of evolutionary competition. Between their declining birth rates, naive idealistic notions of humans rights, and mass third world immigration accompanied by high fertility rates, europeans are like a subspecies being driven towards extinction.

 

Even the Bible says that's how gods are created.

 

Wow! You blew both of your legs off this time. There are more examples of sex outside of marriage in the Bible than there is about sex inside marriage. You need to read the fairy tale again.

 

Agh, sp promsicuity is fine ... gla dto know that atheists are competing for ... er, high quality women, who are apparently having to chose ... just sex ... no relationship ... with either a coke head or an atheist. Nice.

So utterly superior to what both Jesus and Science say about promiscuity.

 

According that warped and nihilistic logic, it means someone has abaondoned all sense of reason. Why not check out birth rates, rather than apply myopic nationalism to a question that supposed to be either evolution or morality.

 

Oh yes, they are clearly presented in exactly the same light. I mean when David sleeps with Bathsehba, basically murders her husband to cover it up, well that is clearly what Jesus was talking about he assigned specific roles to marriage partners ... and funny, adultry is listed as violating one of the ten commandmemnts ... and when David does it ... hmmm ... I am sure there is a contradiction in there somewhere? Wait, the deiteronomic laws that atheists always list as barbaric! Oh yeah, they pretty strongly condemn promiscuity don't they.

Yet people were adulterous in the ancient times, just like now. And then, just like now, it has consequences. Which is why the consequences are spelled out in real world example, David then - Kristen Stewart now, but heh, I am sure the utter abscence of women in this thread and its macismo will be noted by those justifying the expoitation of women, which is apparently honorable, at any minute.

BTW - do atheists read the Bible, or just take blad quotes from atheists web sites and pretend that the cliff notes version is the same thing as reading the Bible?

What a marvelous cult atheists have, one that exists to simply, and deliberately slander other people's faith.

 

If she's "using" you that's one thing - leading you on or lying to you just to get you to spend money on her - which was my whole point about why it's stupid to spend money on a girl if you haven't currently been dating her for a long time.

But if the deal was simply that you felt "used" because you wanted to date her and she wasn't interested in that kind of relationship, then no that's just being immature - you shouldn't have spent it on her with that expectation in mind.

Totally incorrect. There was no commandment not to have sex with a woman who a man was not married to, though in Biblical times, usually the man would have been obligated to buy her from her family and take her as his wife/concubine if he slept with her. Only having sex with another man's wife is ever mentioned as a sin.

 

Duh, but that doesn't give evolution a "hierarchy" or "standing".

BTW, "best" isn't the rioght word. Just because you find a mate, that doesn't mean that you have the best evolutionary traits.

 

Space:
Please read the following article. You claim to b Christian, then I ask you, how can you deliberately do this to women?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/july10/1.32.html

Bear in mind, when directly asked about promiscuity, something Jesus probably considered an obvious wrong, Paul clarifies that so much as looking as a woman with lust in your heart is 'adultry'. That is as much a clarification that promiscuity violates the commandments as one can get.

Sex without commitment is empty, demeaning, and, over time, highly damaging.

 

Yes I'm a Christian in the sense that many of the founders were, I share beliefs similar to Jefferson and other founders. I'm not an evangelical or fundamentalist. "Lust" only refers to women who are married and belong to another man - sex drive is natural, so tell me how you could believe it's "evil" for you to look at a woman and feel attracted to her? I suppose if you are married and you are lusting after other women, that would fall into the same boat, because it would lead to cheating and adultery.

However many Biblical figures like Solomon and David had many relationships with different women - and God never explicitly condemned them for it - God did condemn David for lusting after the other man (I forget his name's) wife, but not simply for having multiple relationships. So why would his opinion shift so radically from Old to New Testament? The evangelical belief on sex before marriage seems to be stretched interpretation of "lusting" after other women.

 

the admonition of Paul predates the founders - by almost two millenia. THere have been and always will be imperfect Christians, imperfect Christians are not our role model - Jesus is. Jesus pretty clearly did not engage in empty sexual encounters -for a reason.

You are not married are you? You do understand that marriages take work to make work? That you cannot simply dump a wife at the first hint of sexual noncompliance like you can a sex buddy right?

Are you unable to see the differneces in such relationships and commitments and how they produce fundamentally different results.

It would also help if you read the article, that addresses many points you are simply skipping.

Empty sex is just that, empty. Its demeaning, exploitative, causes severe relationship and mental health issues over time, stuts normal relationships, etc. etc. etc.

You'll forgive me, I realize that many in this day and age excuse such behavior, but to call that behavior and its deliberate exploitation of others 'Christian' is silly. Its not Christian, its human. Which is why you and an atheist are argueing about which of you is better at having empty sex, and neither of your are talking about relationships, how to make them work, or being a father.

There is more to a relationship than your penis.

 

I hear you - however you could make the same argument about alcohol or smoking as well - Christianity never explicitly condemns them, though many Christians are completely against them, and most would at least agree that chronic drinking is a problem. Looks like it's black and white to you - some people date and may have "empty sex" while in the process of dating and looking for the right person, that doesn't mean they have no desire find a special someone however. "Empty sex" and a committed relationship aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. And no I'm not married - yet, that doesn't mean that I have no desire to be married and only live for "empty sex".

 

Incapable of reading?

"I found it interesting that her motives changed."

Your point is moot.

Do you now realize how relative Christianity is?

 

There ar emany Christians who abstain from both.

And the problem with alcohol in particular is not that it is inherently bad, its that it does two things:

#1 - it interfers with your relationship with God. You cannot hear or follow God's commandments when you are drunk.

#2 - Alcohol has a way of getting in and becoming habit forming. When things are bad, alcohol can beciome a source of succor rather than actually facing down problems. This leads to alcholism, problems with families, profession, etc. If it is used, its is to be used with caution and ... temperance.

I drank for many years. I gave it up after I went back to a church where I strongly felt the holy spirit. The week I went back however, it was as if the spirit was gone. Up came a speaker who reminded the congregation that alcohol put a barrier between God and his followers - I had a single ounce of Cognac the night before. Point taken.

Haven't touched it since.

That being said, the warning on alcohol is nothing compared to the explicit listing of promsicuity as akin to adultry. Its a specific commandment to avoid, and the reason, as you will find out when and if you marry, is that sex between two committed and caring people is a wonderful thing. In can enrich both people - as opposed to the mindless emptiness of just screwing a recepticle for your sperm.

And yes, it really is that degrading when you take a step back from the behavior.

 

My question is, did she lie to you or purposely deceive you? Or did you just go into it with a false expectation?

 

Not really......The catholics used to kill people for not converting all the time.

 

And atheists did it for not joining the Revolution ... or at least not joining it with enough blind devotion and ferver at any rate.

Is there something to be gained by attempting to portray your adversary as a mass murderer? Or are we basically saying that hyperbolyle is all we have and can discuss? Any student of even basic history has seen abuse on a mass scale justified for many reasons, and the key would be to be wary of those exploiting any and all ideologies for ill intent.

The worst thing one can do is pretend that their ideology is above such corruption. Even worse? Pretending its above such corruption by accusing the innocent of criminal actions.

 

The difference is, the catholic church as a whole, in the past, has supported the murder of non-catholics.......During the cruisade, the church offered reward for the killing of Muslims, including women and children. It was a general ideal of the church at the time that to kill non-christians was not a sin and was viewed as the work of god. The Knight's templar as been said to have prpotected Christian pilgrims during the cruisades, but they did so not by fighting hostile muslims who attacked them (THe Templars very rarely actually fought Muslim knights), but by riding down and slaughter muslim pilgrims. They were praised by the pope and the church for it, as being the instrument of god's will.

At no time in the history of athiesm was it the general belief of athiests that murdering religious people was ok. It has always been a small portion of athiests that have that type of extreme anti-religion ferver.

 

Really? You are telling me that the there are no priests who disagreed with the Crusades? I suggest you check out Saint Francis.

And yes, the fact that history is filled with the mass murder of people clearly indicates that opposite of what you claim. The difference? The Crusades were not all that different from wars during that period. They happened.

However, even the worst Christian purges pale in comparison to the brutal slaughter of million at the hands of atheists within recent memory. There was no quest for conquest, the expansion of empire - just a revolution to encapsulate the head atheist, and the only thing that mattered was the power of the head atheist, and millions were tortured and killed to achieve political power that peaceful means had previously secured - until an atheist decided he wanted power ...

Now, if you think that is an unfair assesment, then kindly ask yourself what exactly it is you are doing to religion? Are you giving it an honest look? Or are you merely looking, as so many atheists do these days, to call religious people violent - even as the vast majority of religious people around you every day are anything but violent? The truth of the matter is that any ideology can be hijacked - and yours was hijacked to murderous intent far more recently, and more often, than the Catholic Church ever was. And the aftermath of the religious wars WE fought? Secularism. In the aftermath of teh 30 years war, we created secularsim.

What is the legacy of atheist warfare? The excuse that, though it happened, its not actually atheism.

Funny how not a single atheist ever criticizes North Korea.

 

North Koreans worshipped Kim-Il-sung as God and Kil-Jong-il as the Son of God. Same thing basically happened with Stalin.

Anyways, you seem to be missing an important point here that I know I have brought up several times.

Stalin didn't kill people in the "name of atheism", religious persecution was done in the name of Communism. Furthermore, of course totalitarian dictators are going to remove systems of power that rival their own.

 

I find it hard to believe that none of the criticism of North Korea (by which I assume you mean the North Korean government) that you've seen was written by an atheist. Nonetheless, let me rectify that for you: I think North Korea is among the worst places to live in the world right now. Political persecution, torture, concentration camps, a corrupt caste system, and worse - it is simply so high on the horribleness scale that I generally take it for granted that everyone is a critic of the country, which is why I for one don't normally go out of my way to point out how bad it is.

So there you go, now you can't say that no atheists criticize North Korea.