Proof of human evolution?

[Adjuvant]

You're going to have a really disappointed wife someday then.

Only if I choose a hedonist, to run with your joke.

Seriously, though. The fact is we "can" and we "will", but if we keep doing doing it and legitimize it and normalize it, if we're unrepentant about it, we're putting ourselves in grave danger. You know it, deep inside, even if you won't admit it here just because you'll lose a stupid internet argument.

edit: Then we've legitimized and normalized it for future generations and that's where Formy's issue with "what we teach our children" really has a bad effect.

 

[downtown]

Only if I choose a hedonist, to run with your joke.

Seriously, though. The fact is we "can" and we "will", but if we keep doing doing it and legitimize it and normalize it, if we're unrepentant about it, we're putting ourselves in grave danger. You know it, deep inside, even if you won't admit it here just because you'll lose a stupid internet argument.

I totally disagree, even *deep inside*. Sexual relations *with my wife* are just as important in developing love and intimacy within my healthy marriage as any other factor. Limiting those relations to a schedule just for procreation, or removing oral sex (or other stuff), would put a strain on that relationship, or limit its growth.

I reject the idea that non-procreative sex is immoral. I don't even think that's biblical. Perhaps the West has erred in saying that sex outside of marriage is fine, but the idea that I'm risking spiritual peril by going down on my wife? Pfft, no way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Right, because if everyone starts does something, it's no longer deviant. I simply do not share that idea. "Deviant" sex is anything that doesn't lead to procreation. We're alot like plants in that regard. When you use sex only for the release of endorphins, or solely for pleasure, believe it or not, you're harming yourself, and that harms God. I do it when I use birth control or get a bj. At least I'm intellectually honest enough to admit it. I don't run around bragging about it and justify it, though, I just keep it to myself.

"Everybody"? Do you have any real notion of how large this bogeyman you apparently fear and hate really is?

And, indeed, psychologists were so backward themselves that until 50 or so years ago when they decided that homosexuality wasn't actually "deviant" behavior anymore. That it wasn't an aberration at all as previously believed, but a perfectly healthy and "normal" way of life.

The "deviant" behavior has finally become gay bashing, as it should have been perceived all along. Baby steps.

RThe "read between the lines" wisdom in not only the Bible but other sources states "bad things happen when deviancy becomes the norm". Maybe that's where I differ from you alot. You chuck the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to wisdom for the sake of intellectualism. I work to try to learn from both.

Don't tell me your imaginary entity is ostensibly going to perpetuate even more genocide for such a patently absurd reason, as he supposedly did thousands of years ago.

 

[Adjuvant]

Of course people argue against it and think it seems illogical. Who doesn't like "feeling good" and move to justify it? It's our primary motivator once shelter and food are adequate. It's why there is rampant illicit substance abuse, and other mass-endorphin-releasing activities.

If it feels good, it must be "good". If it ain't "good", we'll make it "good". We'll teach everyone else to do it, so there's no question.

 

[Berzerker]

When you use sex only for the release of endorphins, or solely for pleasure, believe it or not, you're harming yourself, and that harms God.

"Dont touch yourself, you're God" - Family Guy

 

[Akka]

When you use sex only for the release of endorphins, or solely for pleasure, believe it or not, you're harming yourself, and that harms God.

I'm split between the smug laugh of contempt and the facepalm.

I do it when I use birth control or get a bj. At least I'm intellectually honest enough to admit it.

If you were "intellectually honest" you wouldn't believe in God. You're just as blind as the regular guy in denial.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you squint your eyes they are just like normal people.

Wha-bam! Thanks, Ziggy

When you use sex only for the release of endorphins, or solely for pleasure, believe it or not, you're harming yourself, and that harms God.

Yeah, there's a lot more to sex that sheer physical pleasure. I mean, it's a part of it, yeah, but it's a lot more than that. And I sincerely doubt that anything I do harms God.

 

[Kyriakos]

I sincerely doubt that anything I do harms God.

What if god is some sort of creature which gets its strength in a way linked to human life (action or even thought by itself), and cannot keep back satan if he does not have the help of those humans?

Actually this is part of Aztec religion. Tezcatlipoca (one of the Four Tezcatlipocas, anyway...) supposedly was so cruel to humans because at the same time he was their protector against even greater evil than himself. So imagine if your hero requests human sacrifice, what would the enemy he keeps at bay ask for?

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, there have certainly been many gods described that rely on humans for a portion of their strength.

 

[Adjuvant]

If you were "intellectually honest" you wouldn't believe in God. You're just as blind as the regular guy in denial.

While being intellectually honest, belief in a deity or a soul is a "paradigm", a different method of arriving at a conclusion, rather than a quantifiable, empirical value such as an "algorithm". You cannot use science to "disprove God" or "disprove a soul". You can use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual". To wit, you cannot use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is bad for the soul", which is what I am arguing.

edit: This is the part wherein you simply state, "I don't believe in souls either". That's fine. That's up to you.

 

[Traitorfish]

You can use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual".

Well, not really, because "illicit" is not a scientific category. You might as well talk about the nutritional value of "evil" vegetables, for all the sense it would make.

 

[Adjuvant]

Well, not really, because "illicit" is not a scientific category.

That's fair and I'm not sure how to remedy that in the vernacular. How does science arrive at the conclusion "illicit drug use is somehow inherently bad"? I suppose they go by every marked effect?

edit: Because if science does not do that, there's no reason to "believe in" Alcoholics Anonymous, for example.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Science" has never arrived at the conclusion that "illicit drug use is somehow inherently bad', because that isn't actually a meaningful sentence on any level. It's gibberish. That's what I'm saying. What scientists (not "science", different) have established is that the consumption of certain chemicals in certain quantities at certain rates has certain effects, and that many of those effects are undesirable, which is a different thing altogether.

 

[Adjuvant]

"Science" has never "arrived at the conclusion 'illicit drug use is somehow inherently bad', because that isn't actually a meaningful sentence on any level. It's gibberish.

Well if it's not scientifically "provable" how do we know it's true?

edit: "Science", an independent process from common sense?

 

[Traitorfish]

We don't "know it's true". It isn't true. It isn't even a meaningful claim. It's gibberish, as I said.

 

[Dralix]

You might as well talk about the nutritional value of "evil" vegetables, for all the sense it would make.

You could try this

http://www.drianwalker.com/veg.html

 

[Adjuvant]

We don't "know it's true". It isn't true. It isn't even a meaningful claim. It's gibberish, as I said.

So being an alcoholic or a drug addict is not "bad for you", and further a reflection of a series of behaviors to be corrected?

 

[Traitorfish]

...I'm sorry, what?

 

[Adjuvant]

Did I stutter?

 

[Formaldehyde]

While being intellectually honest, belief in a deity or a soul is a "paradigm", a different method of arriving at a conclusion, rather than a quantifiable, empirical value such as an "algorithm". You cannot use science to "disprove God" or "disprove a soul". You can use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual". To wit, you cannot use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is bad for the soul", which is what I am arguing.

I find it odd that you know you can't use science to disprove a god. But you don't seem to know much at all about science itself, as others have pointed out.

Endorphins are released during far more activities than just sex. They are critical to protect you from being overwhelmed by pain when you can least afford to do so. That being tied in with sexual activity is likely not some random event. In your parlance, your god deliberately made that decision to help perpetuate the species. While from the perspective of science, it would quite likely to be the result of evolution.

If your god was really so offended by quite normal human animal kingdom behavior, don't you think he would have made sure that all humans animals naturally abhorred homosexual activity so they would never even think of engaging in such conduct?