Atheists have better sex lives | Daily Mail

[_Some Schmo]

You've decided to stop trying, huh?

If you can't see that your limitations are aribtrary and the Christian view is not, then, no, there's really nothing else to say. You'll just have to think it through for yourself.

OK, now you're just talking crap. What limitations, specifically? Quit pretending you have anything at all in mind when you say stuff like this.

Either say something with substance or admit you have nothing. Nobody with at least half a brain is fooled by this nonsense.

Why do religious apologists have to resort to BS drivel dressed up to appear thoughtful/deep? Is that the best ya got?

[_1 Iron]

For consideration - The Hook-Up and the Brain

[_Hoops]

OK, now you're just talking crap. What limitations, specifically? Quit pretending you have anything at all in mind when you say stuff like this.

You're one of those little guys aren't you? Anyway. You wrote, "More knowledge is always better." Yet, above, you don't recommend "more knowledge" for teens. Why not? Have you arbitrarily set a limit on who can access this knowledge? Based on what? Their age? Chronological age is not always the best determinant for who should have this knowledge?

Either say something with substance or admit you have nothing. Nobody with at least half a brain is fooled by this nonsense.

Are you always a pretentious ass? or are you just trying it out these last few weeks?

Why do religious apologists have to resort to BS drivel dressed up to appear thoughtful/deep? Is that the best ya got?

Cause it's the only thing you understand. You don't want a thoughtful discussion. You want a forum to declare yourself soooooo enlightened and soooooo "above the fray," and so intellectually superior to one who holds religious beliefs. You're the worst kind of atheist. That kind that thinks being profane substitutes for a personality.

[_Some Schmo]

OK, now you're just talking crap. What limitations, specifically? Quit pretending you have anything at all in mind when you say stuff like this.

You're one of those little guys aren't you?

Heh. I guess you think you're big. I bet it made you feel bigger to type that, huh?

Anyway. You wrote, "More knowledge is always better." Yet, above, you don't recommend "more knowledge" for teens. Why not? Have you arbitrarily set a limit on who can access this knowledge? Based on what? Their age? Chronological age is not always the best determinant for who should have this knowledge?

I noticed you failed to understand the entire point there. Maybe you didn't want to. Could it be due to your own deficiency with respect to personal responsibility?

Either say something with substance or admit you have nothing. Nobody with at least half a brain is fooled by this nonsense.

Are you always a pretentious ass? or are you just trying it out these last few weeks?

I suppose I'd rather be a pretentious ass than a dumb ass.

Why do religious apologists have to resort to BS drivel dressed up to appear thoughtful/deep? Is that the best ya got?

Cause it's the only thing you understand. You don't want a thoughtful discussion.

That's good. Throw more BS onto the pile. I ask for a more thoughtful response and you answer by declaring I don't want that (as though you have a clue). Way to help your argument and appear thoughtful yourself, smart guy.

*stifles laughter*

You want a forum to declare yourself soooooo enlightened and soooooo "above the fray," and so intellectually superior to one who holds religious beliefs. You're the worst kind of atheist. That kind that thinks being profane substitutes for a personality.

Now that you've finished your whiney rant, do you feel better?

[_Jason Bourne]

While that is a legitimate concern about premarital sex, like anything adults do, they need to do it responsibly. I don't consider unplanned pregnancy a hazard of premarital sex as much as a hazard of irresponsible sex. Married people can have an unplanned pregnancy too, as can people who have affairs.

Sure. But the result of unplanned pregnancies to those who are not married, and are often young, poor and financially unstable are typically much more problematic then an unplanned pregnancy to a married couple. And the cost to society is greater as well. And there are no 100% fool proof methods of birth control so the only sure way of not having babies outside of marriage is abstinence. Same for disease prevention as well.

And I agree adults need to be responsible. Sadly they often are not. And the premarital sex that often results in unplanned pregnancies happens to teens and those who should not be having premarital sex until at least they are older and better able to handle all that goes with it.

Using the analogy I started before, some people who drive are irresponsible drivers. Should we ban all driving because some people suffer fatal car accidents?

Some drivers should be banned. Some people should not be having premarital sex. I think we both agree at least that young people should wait.

As I've tried to stress all along, I'm advocating for premarital sex between consenting adults. If you're an adult, it's presumed you take responsibility for yourself. People who don't take responsibility suffer the consequences.

But the adult may not be the only one to suffer. Now there is a child and maybe a cost to society.

I should also point out that I am not especially in favor of teens having sex (which assumes the premarital variety). But that's not because it's premarital sex, it's because it's adolescent sex. Teenagers are notoriously irresponsible, so they're asking for trouble having sex without taking the responsibility that goes with it.

I agree.

[_Some Schmo]

Sure. But the result of unplanned pregnancies to those who are not married, and are often young, poor and financially unstable are typically much more problematic then an unplanned pregnancy to a married couple. And the cost to society is greater as well. And there are no 100% fool proof methods of birth control so the only sure way of not having babies outside of marriage is abstinence. Same for disease prevention as well.

No question. These are all good points.

I still see this as an issue of responsibility, though. If you're going to have premarital sex, you have to take responsibility for whatever the outcomes are. People shouldn't do it without understanding the potential consequences and being prepared for them.

The thing is, to gain anything good takes risk. A responsible person will do what they can to mitigate the risks. Saying "no premaital sex" because there's a risk involved is like saying "no starting businesses" because there's a risk involved. A better rule would be, if you're going to start a business, do some research first. Not doing so is irresponsible. You have to give to get.

Certainly, the best way to not get screwed starting a business is to not start a business (abstinence). Should nobody start a business?

Using the analogy I started before, some people who drive are irresponsible drivers. Should we ban all driving because some people suffer fatal car accidents?

Some drivers should be banned. Some people should not be having premarital sex. I think we both agree at least that young people should wait.

Absolutely.

What's problematic is saying, because some people should be banned, we should just make a rule that everyone is banned.

As I've tried to stress all along, I'm advocating for premarital sex between consenting adults. If you're an adult, it's presumed you take responsibility for yourself. People who don't take responsibility suffer the consequences.

But the adult may not be the only one to suffer. Now there is a child and maybe a cost to society.

That is an unfortunate truth. There is always a cost for our freedoms. I still prefer my freedoms.

[_Hoops]

I noticed you failed to understand the entire point there. Maybe you didn't want to. Could it be due to your own deficiency with respect to personal responsibility?

you wrote: "More knowledge is always better." Except, well, not all the time, right? There are certain situations , well, maybe more knowledge is not better. What in the world is your position? What more need be said?

I suppose I'd rather be a pretentious ass than a dumb ass.

Ah, yes, there it is again. How do you stand anyone but yourself? And you manage to be both.

That's good. Throw more BS onto the pile. I ask for a more thoughtful response and you answer by declaring I don't want that (as though you have a clue). Way to help your argument and appear thoughtful yourself, smart guy.

I don't recall reading where you asked for a more thoughtful response. You resort to the "stupid" card, like most atheists. Your as dogmatic as the most strident LDS or Christian.

[_Some Schmo]

I noticed you failed to understand the entire point there. Maybe you didn't want to. Could it be due to your own deficiency with respect to personal responsibility?

you wrote: "More knowledge is always better." Except, well, not all the time, right? There are certain situations , well, maybe more knowledge is not better. What in the world is your position? What more need be said?

*rolls eyes* ...really?

I said that more knowledge (actually, it was "experience", not "knowledge", but close enough) was better for making informed decisions, but heaven forbid I deny your right to ignore the point.

I suppose I'd rather be a pretentious ass than a dumb ass.

Ah, yes, there it is again. How do you stand anyone but yourself? And you manage to be both.

Just so we're clear, I intimate that you're a dumb ass and that makes me a pretentious ass. You explicitly state that I'm both a pretentious ass and a dumb ass, and that makes you...

What are you trying to prove again?

I don't recall reading where you asked for a more thoughtful response. You resort to the "stupid" card, like most atheists. Your as dogmatic as the most strident LDS or Christian.

I only resort to the "stupid" card when confronted with stupidity. Have I called Jason stupid? I think his responses have been very thoughtful and have altered my position somewhat. Perhaps you should read his posts. Take notes. Learn to discuss reasonably.

I enjoyed the expression of your bigotry toward atheists, by the way. It really put the exclamation mark on your overall point, and demonstrated just how hard you try to be a good christian. Excellent! Go forth and claim your heavenly rewards!

[_Hoops]

*rolls eyes* ...really?

I said that more knowledge (actually, it was "experience", not "knowledge", but close enough) was better for making informed decisions, but heaven forbid I deny your right to ignore the point.

You wrote: Sorry, but it's always better to make decisions with more information than less

I only resort to the "stupid" card when confronted with stupidity. Have I called Jason stupid? I think his responses have been very thoughtful and have altered my position somewhat. Perhaps you should read his posts. Take notes. Learn to discuss reasonably.

Your posts are riddled with the insinuation. That's fine. But could you please try and refute my arguments? Yes, I know you've responded reasonably to Jason, but he is making a case outside of mine. I purposefully avoided his arguments. Even if his arguments could somehow be wiped away, there are still good reasons to avoid pre-marital sex. The Christian teaching against pre-marital sex is not arbitrary. We have reasons for this stance. You just don't agree with them. Your entire argument for not agreeing with them is that they are stupid, thereby those who support them must be stupid as well.

I enjoyed the expression of your bigotry toward atheists, by the way. It really put the exclamation mark on your overall point, and demonstrated just how hard you try to be a good christian. Excellent! Go forth and claim your heavenly rewards!

You don't seem to know much about what being a Christian is.

[_Some Schmo]

*rolls eyes* ...really?

I said that more knowledge (actually, it was "experience", not "knowledge", but close enough) was better for making informed decisions, but heaven forbid I deny your right to ignore the point.

You wrote: Sorry, but it's always better to make decisions with more information than less

Well, there ya go.

I only resort to the "stupid" card when confronted with stupidity. Have I called Jason stupid? I think his responses have been very thoughtful and have altered my position somewhat. Perhaps you should read his posts. Take notes. Learn to discuss reasonably.

Your posts are riddled with the insinuation. That's fine. But could you please try and refute my arguments?

What, that your religion has set up rules that you need to obey to be a good christian and that if you disobey them, you should feel guilty?

I'm still waiting for an argument that shows why those rules aren't an arbitrary construct. Asserting "they aren't arbitrary" doesn't constitute an argument.

Yes, I know you've responded reasonably to Jason, but he is making a case outside of mine. I purposefully avoided his arguments. Even if his arguments could somehow be wiped away, there are still good reasons to avoid pre-marital sex. The Christian teaching against pre-marital sex is not arbitrary. We have reasons for this stance. You just don't agree with them. Your entire argument for not agreeing with them is that they are stupid, thereby those who support them must be stupid as well.

I didn't need you to confirm that you didn't understand my argument. That was already painfully obvious.

FYI: "arbitrary" is not synonymous with "stupid."

I enjoyed the expression of your bigotry toward atheists, by the way. It really put the exclamation mark on your overall point, and demonstrated just how hard you try to be a good christian. Excellent! Go forth and claim your heavenly rewards!

You don't seem to know much about what being a Christian is.

That's funny... I was thinking the same about you. Go figure.