Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Megan Wegan,
Which is something I will never understand. (Beyond, you know, safety, as already discussed for 20 pages.)
The caveat that breaks the case. You can understand telling people what to do with their dicks, when it comes to wrapping them up in condoms. It's the Only Good Casual Sex.
ETA: But I must say I've got 100 times more time for your views than sexual views of major religions. The number of casualties of your views are much lower. I just can't wholeheartedly agree, for personal reasons.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Deborah,
It's disheartening but unsurprising that "wrong sex" is currently being defined by the leadership as utterly in line with the Abrahamic idea of "wrong sex".
Yes, I guess celibates end up of like mind. Best argument against them running religions, really.
It can't be the belief that there is no god, even if some atheists put it that way, because as a matter of logic, it's impossible to prove a negative. There can be no evidence that proves that god doesn't exist.
I don't think so. The Argument From Evil is a very powerful cut down of one way of constructing a God. This God isn't logically contradictory, but the existence of evil suggest that he can't exist in this world without being logically contradictory.
So, basically, what you're saying is that "Atheists who are preoccupied with Christianity, are preoccupied with Christianity"? I'd agree with that.
That's a fair cop. Similar defences exist for most religious positions too, there are countless practitioners who have views that are totally different from the organized religious groups. Which is why it's actually quite hard to generalize about what, say, Christians, think about stuff.
Atheism vs Agnosticism is usually constructed as a binary. I don't think this is helpful. You could have a degree of belief in both - you probably just can't really have a very high degree in both, otherwise you render the terms identical.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to James Butler,
It's not a matter of having "powerful arguments against the existence of one formulation of the Christian deity", but of no-one else having testable arguments for their particular deity. I don't see exactly how this differs from your "general scepticism and unbelief".
Many times I've heard Atheists raise the Argument from Evil, one that I've always agreed with. It's a great big hammer in their repertoire. Wider out, it's just "you can't prove it", to which the comeback is "neither can you". Which leads to the rational position, IMHO, of withholding judgment, rather than claiming to actually know. It's the difference between being Agnostic and Atheist. I'm personally Agnostic, leaning toward Atheism as being likely. That does not, IMHO, make me an Atheist.
That's the theory side. The practical side is that Western* Atheists engage in most of their debates against Christians, and pore over the Bible at length. I just don't want to hang out with Christians or read their shit that much - this kind of debating gives the old beardo in the sky more airtime than he deserves.
*ETA: Perhaps I should make that more tight: Western Evangelical Atheists. There's plenty, like my Dad, who just never talk about it. If asked, they say "I think there's no God". Asked why, it's "It seems silly and I don't care about it and don't want to spend time on it". These are the people who close the door on Mormons, rather than enjoying standing there for an hour arguing with them.
-
> Buddhist don’t seem to think that sex is a subject for their religion to stipulate about, although monks are traditionally chaste. Again, I expect this ambiguity means that the decisions about these things fall into the hands of the powerful.
Um…
Yeah, you’re the big cheese in Buddhism but never got laid in your life. Hard to really expect a different outcome than them having views that are kind of whack. As with Catholicism, what the Dalai Lama says, and what the “folllowers” do are always going to be out of synch, when the main dude’s dick gets no action.
It does seem that they just have different rules for monks and the laity. But that page needs a lot more citations before I really believe it.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to James Butler,
"Oooh, look who's defining themselves against Christianity again". Screw 'em.
Yes, it's something Atheists are stuck with. They have extremely powerful arguments against the existence of one formulation of the Christian deity, which I find compelling. But they get weaker and weaker the wider they cast the net - most kinds of gods can't be disproved, and the worship forms and practices aren't always bad. So the belief flutters around Christianity like a moth around a lightbulb. Further away you just don't see them so much - they fall into a darker backdrop of general scepticism and unbelief, the place I've been fluttering most of my life.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Emma Hart,
There is nothing that makes Satanism not a religion.
Yes, it walks and quacks like one.*
Also, atheism is what now?
IMHO, a view that might be true, but causes a whole lot of unnecessary reading of the Bible in proving that.
*ETA: I'd also say there's little for me to be bitter on in there, except that I'm not into any kind of worship that places their deity above Richie McCaw.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Emma Hart,
Yes, hence Satanism. My only problem with it is that, like Atheism, it's forming itself in the shadow of Christianity, rather than just ignoring it.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Serious question I'd like an answer to: is there any religion whose prohibitions on contraception aren't based around a view that the only legitimate type of sexual activity is procreative, within-marriage sex?
I'm given to understand that the Anglican church allows condom use. Also, it's clergy can have sex and have children, and can be gay. They also don't require the clergy to actually believe in God. I guess that happens in a church that is born from a King wanting to use his penis for the good of the nation rather than the Church.
Which is not to say there aren't intolerant arseholes who are Anglicans, right the way to the top.
From what I can tell, various kinds of protestant churches are contraception tolerant. Some are as bitter as can be about it - Amish forbid even the rhythm method.
Hinduism, as an example of a very ancient religion, would seem to be quite liberal in some ways, but to me it's more a case of ambiguity playing into the hands of the powerful, and conservative Hindus are very bitter on pre-marital sex.
Buddhist don't seem to think that sex is a subject for their religion to stipulate about, although monks are traditionally chaste. Again, I expect this ambiguity means that the decisions about these things fall into the hands of the powerful.
Satanism. LOL. Go for it, but don't hurt anyone. Is this a real religion?
The hardcore Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, are down on any kind of sexual fun. Which in practice means much of their flock ignore them on the matter.
Confucians and Taoists seem to have a balanced view on the matter, that birth control makes sense for family and social harmony. Taoists are into sexual fun, it would seem.
Scientologists seem to think it's their business in a big way, that gays are sick, that promiscuity is symptomatic of unaudited thoughts, and that it's all about kids. They have an extremely powerful method of sexual repression, the auditing process, which can be used afterward to ruin people's lives if they attempt to break away.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I don't know, perhaps it's going to take a shit load of lawsuits and OSH/public health prosecutions (and large settlements and fines) for the industry to clean up its act but my inner market purist would rather see more producers deciding that a healthy workforce, positive messages and a healthy profit don't need to be mutually exclusive.
It would take a heck of a lot, I think. It's the ultimate globalized business, in some ways typifying everything that's both simultaneously good and bad about globalization.
-
Field Theory: Rugby World Cup stories, in reply to JackElder,
Word. My son's school has been right into it, and it's made for good fun, good teaching opportunities.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 514 515 516 517 518 … 1066 Older→ First