Atheists have better sex lives | Daily Mail

[_DarkHelmet]

In a twist of expected irony, the thread I started about this article over on The Gated Community (a.k.a. MDD) was shut down within three posts because of the sexual nature of the article.

Kinda proves the point.

H.

LOL.

[_Buffalo]

In a twist of expected irony, the thread I started about this article over on The Gated Community (a.k.a. MDD) was shut down within three posts because of the sexual nature of the article.

Kinda proves the point.

H.

[_3sheets2thewind]

"Worryingly, children raised in strongly religious homes were more likely to get their sex education from pornography, as they were not confident enough to talk with their parents."

I can attest to that.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes, my standard is to live life to the fullest, make informed decisions (like "I can marry this woman because I already know we're sexually compatible"),

That's not a standard. That's a philosophy.

Actually, it's a standard derived from a philosophy.

and don't give in to arbitrary, impractical rules made up by ancient men with limited knowledge

Me to.

No you don't. Not if you follow a christian religion. Sorry.

who had no grasp of what it's like to live in the 21st century.

Oh, please. Do you honestly think humans have changed that much in 10,000 years?

When it comes to standards, yes, mankind has changed a ton... even in the last 100 years, let alone 10,000. For example, views on slavery highlight this change quite nicely, I'd say.

I suppose my standard is "what's pragmatic." Feeling guilt over mistakes that aren't really mistakes (except in the most arbitrary sense)

Me to.

I have no doubt it's comfortable for you to imagine that. It's clearly not true, but certainly must be comfortable.

Do you or do you not have any standard for sexual expression?

I've already told you my standard.

by the way, I love that you're defending sexual guilt. When these kinds of topics come up, most religious folks play silly word games, deny and equivocate away, but you're actually embracing religious guilt over sex and defending it. Kudos to you for actually being religious in the face of all reason.

[_Hoops]

That's not a standard. That's a philosophy.

Actually, it's a standard derived from a philosophy.

Please consult a dictionary regarding what standard means in this context.

and don't give in to arbitrary, impractical rules made up by ancient men with limited knowledge

Me to.

No you don't. Not if you follow a christian religion. Sorry.

I deny your premise. A premise that you can not prove.

who had no grasp of what it's like to live in the 21st century.

Oh, please. Do you honestly think humans have changed that much in 10,000 years?

When it comes to standards, yes, mankind has changed a ton... even in the last 100 years, let alone 10,000. For example, views on slavery highlight this change quite nicely, I'd say.

That's not a change in humankind, that's a change in human philosophy or worldview. Which, really, hurts your case - not helps it.

I suppose my standard is "what's pragmatic." Feeling guilt over mistakes that aren't really mistakes (except in the most arbitrary sense)

Me to.

I have no doubt it's comfortable for you to imagine that. It's clearly not true, but certainly must be comfortable.

Are you responsible for the language you use at all? Or should I respond to what I think you meant to write, not what you actually write.

It's NOT clearly not true. It's merely your opinion. Granted, shared by millions. But also disputed by millions

Do you or do you not have any standard for sexual expression?

I've already told you my standard.

by the way, I love that you're defending sexual guilt. When these kinds of topics come up, most religious folks play silly word games, deny and equivocate away, but you're actually embracing religious guilt over sex and defending it. Kudos to you for actually being religious in the face of all reason.

I'm not embracing sexual guilt. I'm explaining guilt over sin. That's a healthy thing and you might even agree - depending on the sin.

[_Some Schmo]

Please consult a dictionary regarding what standard means in this context.

Dictionaries don't actually provide definitions for all possible contexts, as much as they might try. FYI.

I know what "standards" means. I choose, however, not to load the word with BS religious overtones.

I deny your premise. A premise that you can not prove.

Of course you deny the premise. I knew that. If you didn't, you'd recognize how arbitrary the rules really are.

And I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't feel the need to. This is just a conversation.

That's not a change in humankind, that's a change in human philosophy or worldview. Which, really, hurts your case - not helps it.

Bummer. I guess it was only a matter of time before you jumped on the word game strategy.

We're talking about standards, right? When you asked if humankind had changed, was it wrong to assume we were still talking about standards?

And this is not bizarro world, where up is down, black is white, and "helps" is "hurts" (as much as that might help whatever it is you're trying to argue at any given moment).

Are you responsible for the language you use at all? Or should I respond to what I think you meant to write, not what you actually write.

It's NOT clearly not true. It's merely your opinion. Granted, shared by millions. But also disputed by millions

It's a logical inference, not an opinion. Let me take you through it:

1) No sex before marriage is an arbitrary rule. The harm of adhering to it outweighs the benefits of ignoring it. It doesn't hurt anyone (assuming consenting adults), and makes little practical sense. Countless individuals over generations have engaged in premarital sex without consequence. For it to not be an arbitrary rule, it would have to cause harm to every single person who engages in it (aside from the guilt associated with simply breaking a "rule").
2) If you gave in to your impulse to have premarital sex, you'd feel religious guilt over breaking an arbitrary rule.
3) Feeling guilt is not good if it's over something arbitrary, therefore, we must assume that it's not an arbitrary rule.

I'm not saying you're lying. I have no doubt you really tell yourself it's not arbitrary and that it's a good practical rule. It's just that, well, you couldn't prove it was (like you could with, say, "no killing people").

I'm not embracing sexual guilt. I'm explaining guilt over sin. That's a healthy thing and you might even agree - depending on the sin.

Nothing quite screams "arbitrary rule" like the supernaturally loaded word "sin."

Yes, I feel guilt over making real mistakes (I don't call them "sins"; that a BS word) which is to say, if I actually harm someone else, I feel guilt about it. Rules concerned with the prevention of harm to others are not, in any way, arbitrary. Rules concerning consenting adults's non-harmful sex habits certainly are.

[_jon]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that God told Moses 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'

He didn't tell Moses 'Thou shalt not fornicate with other unattached people'

And as this thread likes definitions:
Adultery - voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse

So as long as neither party is married, God don't mind...

[_Hoops]

I know what "standards" means. I choose, however, not to load the word with BS religious overtones.

Nor do I. Here's how I am using it (paraphrasing). A standard is a fixed unit by which something else is measured. In this case, most religious people recognize that the Christian faith discourages pre-marital sex.

And I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't feel the need to. This is just a conversation.

Great! I am always willing to have conversations with unbelievers.

Bummer. I guess it was only a matter of time before you jumped on the word game strategy.

No word game strategy here. I try to use the precise word for what I'm trying to communicate - I often fail (over which I have little guilt), but I try.

We're talking about standards, right? When you asked if humankind had changed, was it wrong to assume we were still talking about standards?

Yes, it was wrong. I thought you were trying to imply that with our 21st century enlightenment we somehow have a better grasp of human frailties. My contention is simple: be it the 21st century or the 8th, humankind has the same urges as always. And we indulge those urges in the same way. Specifically, sex. pre-marital sex has been around for ever and people have been engaging in it all that time. I read somewhere (I don't have the reference so take it for what it's worth) that the Puritans engaged in as much pre-marital sex as we do today. Pregnancy was the leading cause of marriage (one might argue that this is the same today wink)

[_Hoops]

For some reason I can only quote and comment on about half of your post. So continued below.

[_Hoops]

It's a logical inference, not an opinion. Let me take you through it:

1) No sex before marriage is an arbitrary rule. The harm of adhering to it outweighs the benefitsof ignoring it.

So you agree that there is harm?

It doesn't hurt anyone (assuming consenting adults

That depends on what you mean by "hurt". Does it physically hurt another? Usually not. setting aside the greater chance for disease - but let's not even address that as I don't think that pertains to the crux of my argument. A Christian recognizes that we have a spirit and that some behaviors can injure our spirit more than others. Engaging in random sexual acts might do exactly that. And that "standard" is different for everyone. And, I think, can be more damaging to women then men - such is the nature of our creation.

and makes little practical sense.

Practicality pertaining to what? If the objective here is to become more sexually adept, then I suppose so. But there is great advantage to becoming sexually adept with one's married (marital?) partner. So I don't think your point here is as strong as you might think. Wouldn't you agree that there could be profound joy in exploring sexual expression with one's spouse? And this is exactly what my pastors have preached.

Countless individuals over generations have engaged in premarital sex without consequence.

And countless others have experienced considerable consequence. What does this prove?

For it to not be an arbitrary rule, it would have to cause harm to every single person who engages in it (aside from the guilt associated with simply breaking a "rule").

I see nothing in the definition of arbitrary that addresses the potential harm.