Atheists have better sex lives | Daily Mail

[_Some Schmo]

Hey SS,

Oh yes... a ridiculous amount of wild guilt-free sex!

Got pictures/proof?

Peace,
Ceeboo

I'm think posts with links to porn sites are forbidden here.

[_Hoops]

Yeah, granted.

And that's not enough?

No more than experienced carpenters can harm a new employer (as opposed to someone with no experience at all).

Sex isn't a trade (quiet down, you, in the back row). You don't enter into a relationship in order to accomplish something. You marry to BE something.

What harm? How is less experience better?

It's a helluva lot better. As two people grow in intimacy they can experience new ways to express their love. It's fresh, new, and exciting.

Incidentally, I've have long wondered about this idea that it's best to have a virgin. WTF? My experiences have always been better with ladies who knew what they were doing.

To what end? This is exactly the point.

Well, then you're just moving the arbitrary-ness back one. The spirit belief is arbitrary, which generates arbitrary rules.

We believe we have ample evidence to support it. You don't. That's fine. But since we believe there is ample evidence, we make recommendations based upon that belief. That's not arbitrary, that's perfectly reasonable

And when I said "anything can injure it" I didn't mean you believed anything could, just that because it's made up, we have the ability to make up anything that could injure it. That's the beauty of fiction and using your imagination. Any magic is possible. It's just not real.

Which is your contention. We believe the evidence is on our side. You cite "a massive lack of evidence" of .... what? That having a spirit is made up? No, there's some faulty logic here. Just because the evidence is not enough to convince you, doesn't make the proposition reflexively false. But this is another topic. It still stands to reason that we are making decisions based on how we see the evidence. That is NOT arbitrary - which is how you opened this discussion.

[_Hoops]

No, I don't just "regard sex as a gathering of information to determine one's suitability to the other" although that can be what happens. It is an expression of intimacy. I also regard it as "a wonderful journey whereby partners seek to give each other pleasure in new and exciting ways."

Then why is more experience better? If you've been on the journey before? The tenth time you've guided a tour group through the Grand Canyon, it's new and exciting for them, but rather humdrum for you. That is doing a dis-service to your partner. Imagine touring Europe for the first time with your partner and she/he says, "Been there done that, let's do something else."

But you're right; for me, god has nothing to do with it

Okay. I feel sorry for you, but okay.

any more than Santa or the tooth fairy do. I'm not into that kind of sexual fantasy.

Why the condescension?

[_Hoops]

My spouse and I recently developed The Flying Dunk position. It involves one of us dressing up as Dirk Nowitski - I won't say which one.

[_Hoops]

I don't know that you can make the blanket statement "marriage is good for society" without some pretty major caveats. Some marriages are not good. Not everyone is suited for it. What about couples that pop out a bunch of kids and then can't stand each other? Is that good for society?

Sure one can. Isolated, individual marriages may not be, but the institution certainly is.

I don't think marrying just to be married is advisable.

Who said it was?

Secularists believe that marriage is an important commitment

Why?

However, it's a major stretch to think that former lovers could harm a current relationship any more than a former boyfriend/girlfriend with whom your weren't intimate could.

No, there is a significant difference in the level of intimacy involved.

I was raised LDS, but I never bought in. From a pretty young age, I realized that with thousands of different religions in the world, they couldn't all be right, and most likely they were all wrong.

Which is not the point. You're claiming that we came up with this arbitrary "rule". I've given you reasons why it's not arbitrary.

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, granted.

And that's not enough?

Not even close.

A person can be in a fatal car accident any time the get into a car. Should we make a rule never to drive again?

No more than experienced carpenters can harm a new employer (as opposed to someone with no experience at all).

Sex isn't a trade (quiet down, you, in the back row). You don't enter into a relationship in order to accomplish something. You marry to BE something.

Really? Then what's all this religious talk about how marriage and sex is for procreation?

What harm? How is less experience better?

It's a helluva lot better. As two people grow in intimacy they can experience new ways to express their love. It's fresh, new, and exciting.

Dude, I could make the same argument about the carpenter. He could grow in skill and experience new ways to express himself through his trade which are fresh, new, and exciting. That doesn't make him as good a carpenter as one that has experience.

Incidentally, I've have long wondered about this idea that it's best to have a virgin. WTF? My experiences have always been better with ladies who knew what they were doing.

To what end? This is exactly the point.

To what end!? Oh, I don't know, sexual satisfaction?

Which is your contention. We believe the evidence is on our side. You cite "a massive lack of evidence" of .... what? That having a spirit is made up? No, there's some faulty logic here. Just because the evidence is not enough to convince you, doesn't make the proposition reflexively false. But this is another topic. It still stands to reason that we are making decisions based on how we see the evidence. That is NOT arbitrary - which is how you opened this discussion.

There is a massive lack of evidence for everyone having a spirit (at least, in the sense that it's a separate, ethereal entity, as opposed to the more innocuous notion of spirit, as in "high spirits").

Again, seeing evidence to support a made up notion is an arbitrary way of seeing the evidence.

If I see that my piano bench is sitting on top of my desk, and I want to believe in ghosts, I could think (arbitrarily) that it's evidence that a ghost put it there. Of course, that would be ignoring all the more reasonable explanations, like my wife was vacuuming the room, or whatever. Not all explanations of evidence are equal.

[_Some Schmo]

Then why is more experience better? If you've been on the journey before? The tenth time you've guided a tour group through the Grand Canyon, it's new and exciting for them, but rather humdrum for you. That is doing a dis-service to your partner. Imagine touring Europe for the first time with your partner and she/he says, "Been there done that, let's do something else."

I don't know how to explain to someone why more experience is better. I'd have thought that notion was self explanatory.

by the way, you should resist comparing your sex partner to the Grand Canyon. I don't think women like that.

But you're right; for me, god has nothing to do with it

Okay. I feel sorry for you, but okay.

No need to feel sorry for me. Sex is awesome for me. I feel sorry for anyone who feels any guilt at all related to sex, or thinks there's a supernatural being involved in it.

any more than Santa or the tooth fairy do. I'm not into that kind of sexual fantasy.

Why the condescension?

Not trying to be condescending. It's a simple fact. I have certain sexual fantasies, but they don't involve mythical creatures, that's all.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't know that you can make the blanket statement "marriage is good for society" without some pretty major caveats. Some marriages are not good. Not everyone is suited for it. What about couples that pop out a bunch of kids and then can't stand each other? Is that good for society?

Sure one can. Isolated, individual marriages may not be, but the institution certainly is.

Good. So we agree that marriage is still ok even if some are harmful. Why can't we say the same for premarital sex, now?

I don't think marrying just to be married is advisable.

Who said it was?

You certainly implied it with the "marriage is good for society" comment. You made it sound like marriage was an end rather than a means. You talked about "what you will BE" when you're married.

In other words, you did (in so many words).

Secularists believe that marriage is an important commitment

Why?

For the same reason any commitment is important. What good is your word if people can't rely on your commitment?

However, it's a major stretch to think that former lovers could harm a current relationship any more than a former boyfriend/girlfriend with whom your weren't intimate could.

No, there is a significant difference in the level of intimacy involved.

Well then I feel sorry for you.

I was raised LDS, but I never bought in. From a pretty young age, I realized that with thousands of different religions in the world, they couldn't all be right, and most likely they were all wrong.

Which is not the point. You're claiming that we came up with this arbitrary "rule". I've given you reasons why it's not arbitrary.

Well, you've given me reasons why you don't think so, and I pretty much already knew them. Like I said before, I understand that you really believe it's not arbitrary. Given the assumptions you live your life by, I'm sure they don't seem arbitrary at all. But as we all know, strong belief does not dictate reality.

[_Fiannan]

The article points out that pornography is the main sex education for young people from strict religious backgrounds as these youngsters are afraid to approach their parents with questions. I think this is true.

[_EAllusion]

The vast majority of Christians in America engage in sex before marriage and many don't seem to have any significant issue with it. Don't confuse your particular Christian views for what a "Christian" thinks.