/atheism/ - Atheism

>>9653

I don't know about you but I respect sex workers just as much as I do anyone else as long as they have a personality I can sort of get along with. As long as you're nice, I don't care if you're a sex worker, scientist, atheist, theist, intelligent, mental retards, etc.

Until I know the goal of life, what we're here for, which I'd assume there isn't one but what you choose, then people that choose different paths in life than I are just as worthy of respect as I. As long as you don't interfere with my goals, I have no issue. One of my goals is helping people respect one another and when you write such a pretentious post, that interferes with my goals of a humanity that gets along.

>>9650

Probably because sex is like candy. It's easily acquired (to some of us here) and a quick hit while most religions and philosophies favor the long hit, the long goals of humanity. Any religion that wants to perpetuate itself won't totally disregard it but often sex, at least with some, can interfere with long term goals and cause strife just as other things we can become addicted to.

I'd recommend the age old adage of 'everything in moderation'.

>>9659

And you think sanctimonious tone policing is going to help us "get along"? LOL

gb2tumblr

I think that religions are opposed to porn, because in this way their followers will marry, make kids, and spread that religion to their kids.

>>9672

And yet, religious states have the highest porn consumption.

Personal opinion: humans tend to tack their sexual guilt on religion, even to the point of believing that sexual guilt originates from religion and that we wouldn't feel it without religion. I can guarantee the opposite: sex guilt happens independently of religion, just like the generally shared need to cover up your adult body; it's the same thing to me. We could dig into that topic, but essentially that's how I see it.

Case in point: masturbation. There isn't a single line in the Bible against it (Onan is not related to masturbation if you actually read the text, it's about breaking a deal, and, in a much more secondary way, pulling out before shooting the load into the womb of your dead brother's wife).

Most religions look at the body in a suspicious way, that much is true. Bodily concerns will often force you to deal with the world rather than whatever spiritual goal you might have, but even that is arguable, as we can't really do anything without our connection to the empirical world, whether it's tennis, a ritual, or 'sturbation. All my people disagree with me on this, don't imagine they'd agree with any of my words here. Fair disclaimer.

Many of them think that sex was intended for procreation and emotional binding of spouses, but that hedonistic goals shouldn't be pursued alone for themselves. To me it's a problem because the question of sex brings the question of fun, fun with your body, or less directly with anything. Is it OK to have fun? I would assume it is and I don't personally make a huge difference between fun while playing tennis with your spouse and playing bed sports.

>>9673

that's because people are still people and no matter how long they try to convince themselves that sex is bad they still want it

>>9690

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

But masturbation is ok, it seems as long as you don't imagine a woman. Christianity is a bunch of hippie, feminist bullshit.

Don't tell me it's wrong, it's straight from your bible. You'll explain it away just like you do everything else but you never give sources, you only mention your washed and glossed-over version as you interpret it.

>>9650

I don't think it's a religious problem.

Sex leads to children and this was a huge problem in the ancient world. You have little food and don't want exponential growth.

Making bastard childs is even worse because nobody wants to care about them.

So the origin of that rule was reasonable. But the reason got lost, the rule stays.

>>9697

>Don't tell me it's wrong, it's straight from your bible.

It's wrong.

The original words means something far more intense than just "lust"; it's not a fleeting moment's lusty thought, it's virtually the planning of it with the intention of taking another man's wife, a very serious offense in those days (due to STD's, cheating endangered the whole Hebrew tribe, which is why adultery is punished by capital punishment, it's an offense against the whole nation).

>You'll explain it away just like you do everything else but you never give sources,

It's not explaining away, it's just the context and the original language; know that most Christian don't like it any better than you when I add information to this.

Sources is history and the original text. I can get you some sources now if you want.

"Another important point is that the command does not forbid recognition of quality or even desire itself (such would be nonsense) but something else: it forbids the action of coveting (hence the verbal form). “Lust” or “desire,” even the sexual variety, is nowhere forbidden in Scripture, nor is it equated with sin, only with the potential to sin (cf. James 1, where lust leads to sin but is not itself sinful). It is also important to note the distinction between the verbal form and the nominal form: when the Hebrew חמד or Greek ἐπιθυμέω are used as verbs in the OT, it denotes desire directed at obtaining the specific object in question and not merely the existence of the desire itself."

http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/

In other words, the sin is in the planning of taking something that isn't yours. The desire itself isn't the sin.

Hope you found that informative.

>>9700

>Sex leads to children and this was a huge problem in the ancient world.

I've never come across that in the ancient world. Mortality was high back then and so having plenty of children was a requirement. Be fruitful and multiply was the rule of all.

Besides, the more children you have, the more food you can grow because your kids work for you.

I think you're projecting a modern day problem onto a day when nobody even considered these ideas.

Kids were your retirement plan back then, nobody else gave a fuck.

The sex stuff is also something we have projected onto the past, as in mistranslating and such. The ancient weren't so shy about sex (reading the Old Testament is evidence of this, just count Solomon's wives and concubines).

>>9650

I think it's more the sex urges and the enjoyment thereof that puts a bug up organized religion's ass.

I can't honestly name one that, outside of their clerics, demands that followers not have sex.

Religion comes down on the sex urge in the form of civil disability. The idea of the orgasm only really becomes a problem when you're putting it in her mouth and ass, or in him. The orgasm is a problem because you're having far too good of a time without the congregation's say. Christianity is the standard model for this control freak attitude about sex, Catholicism in particular in the way they target birth control. It isn't a hate of sex, it's a hate of the idea of fucking for any reason other than your duty to the community.

But that notion most likely doesn't stop at christianity. Communist Russia was big on breeding, but not too big on the sex part, being married without children wasn't grounds for ostracization, but it wasn't by any fucking means something you'd bring up with pride.

I imagine christianity hit so hard at it because of the whole Rome being the fucking good life thing.

>>9712

This

>>9711

You always give this reply of 'those words don't mean what they mean'. Ok, what translation or version of the bible is correct? You keep narrowing things down and fidgeting definitions until it fits into what you view as right. I've been in this game for years, it's made me an animal. There's rules to this shit, I wrote me a manual. I know how the game's played, I used to do this all the time when I was a christfag until it fit how I wanted and not necessarily how other peers felt. But as long as it felt right by me, that was the correction interpretation.

You realize religious people tend to be the ones that have the most children right?

Meanwhile atheists are the ones who freak out every time they see a sexy woman in fiction.

>>9712

You can't send 1-5yo to grow food.

You have a wrong impression of that time.Most people in the bible a fairly rich (for that time) and have land and animals but that wasn't the majority.

Also farming was pretty bad back then.

And like I said kids outside of marriage were a larger problem than today.

The "Be fruitful and multiply was the rule of all" rule was for married adults.

You are the one who is projecting our security on these people.

>>9726

Yes but those 1 to 5 year olds grow up into a company of young men with muscle. Back then, and today, people tend to trust their family rather than to hire outsiders. Even during the Great Depression it was common for a rural family to have 8 kids, which made farming easier. (Except many died quickly.)

>>9727

You ignore my point. The most rules of the bible against sex is against between unmarried couples or against cheating because this was an actual problem. No one likes bastard childrens.

The rules are based on social issues back then.

They made sense in this time.

Not eating shellfish made sense.

But they never explain shit and just tell the rules. And the religioius people stick to the rules even when thy don't make much sense anymore.

>>9718

>Meanwhile atheists are the ones who freak out every time they see a sexy woman in fiction

What the fuck? Atheists are the ones who freak out at fictional women, what is wrong with you?

Look at islam, one fucking billion people and they all want women covered in ninja suits, and look at christians at how bad they feel for touching themselves or masturbating "spilling their seeds".

You are either that stupid or it's just statuefag again.

>>9718

>Meanwhile atheists are the ones who freak out every time they see a sexy woman in fiction.

Atheists must be a word substitution typo for Christians.

>>9718

Statuefag is the only huefag stupid enough to believe this bullshit.

>>9732

>Anita talking about anyone not playing video games

Let me guess, some atheist hurt McIntosh's feelings again.

>>9736

That should be expected by now.

>>9732

Wrong thread, idiot.

>>9743

>Because western religions are actually patriarchal

Facts are oppressive.

The majority of women are religious, and the majority of atheists are men. Women hate men, so…

>>9738

Wrong thread? Go fuck yourself. The anita image is a response to someone who thinks atheists are scared of sexy women, anita wants everything sexy off the face of the earth, and she hates atheists

>>9650

You are looking at it wrongly. No religion actually asks people to never reproduce. On the contrary, what they do is asking people to only reproduce when they are under the control of religion, and some of them even teach people to hate birth control, to make sure they produce more children than anyone else.

>don't reproduce if a priest isn't informed that you guys are having sex

>don't reproduce if you are not going to indoctrinate your kids

>don't use condoms, don't kill embryos

it makes evolutionary sense. Religion is a meme that specially attacks young victims, so if you restrain reproduction that doesn't occur under the auspices of religion, and then give a divine blessing to couples who are into religion to reproduce like rabbits with no sense of responsibility for overpopulation, quality of life, etc., you are pretty much writing a recipe for evolutionary success.

>>9752

>The way Hitchens tries to hide the orange juice.

>>12539

>>12604

Attacks on any religion are attacks on all religions, because if you can see through one layer of bullshit it's easier to see through more of them. Religious people know that, which is why they'll put up with all manners of heretic before they'll think about agreeing with an atheist.

This is relevant because racism, misogyny, and privilege are treated as the sjwish equivalent of Christianity's concept of original sin, from which sinners need to repent so that they may be saved.