5 ms·

Sex is not a bodily necessity On the contrary, from a biological/evolutionary perspective, it is the only reason we exist (i.e. to make more of ourselves).

yters 19y ago
You know what I mean. Having sex often is not something we need to do, vs eating and sleeping.
- dpapathanasiou 19y ago
  Both extremes (not only prurient nymphomania but also the kind of zealous abstinence you're advocating) are bad. Since you seem to be involved in the Creationism / "Intelligent" Design movement, could you explain why fundamentalist Christians are hell-bent (pun intended) on dragging civilization back to the dark ages, where scripture and Church doctrine are more important than science? It seems like a giant leap backwards.
  - yters 19y ago
    I didn't mean to imply zealous abstinence, just am against the prurient nymphomania or whatever recommended in that reddit thread. Still, though, I think there is something to be said for virginity. For some reason it was even an ideal in the Greek world before Christianity, e.g. Plato. But it wasn't an ideal in the sense that sex was considered bad, just virginity, voluntarily taken, was a nobler thing. That's another discussion, though. First of all, I'm pretty sure it's commonly accepted that the notion of the 'dark ages' is a product of bad scholarship, though I don't have a good cite for you, so you can ignore that point. As for religion and science, I'm against any attempt to undermine reason, but this means we have to be open to the truth no matter where it lies, whether in today's 'science' (which is very philosophically narrow) or theology. However, this doesn't mean contradiction between the two is resolved by ignoring science. If people really believe theology is supported by the evidence, then they cannot believe there are any real contradictions between science and theology. That's the position of the sophisticated element of the ID movement. Also, keep in mind that the ID movement is not essentially Christian or fundamentalist. For example, Christopher Langan is an ID theorist who is a pantheist, which is pretty interesting.
    - yters 19y ago
      As elaboration, I agree with Daniel Dennett's synopsis of what is dangerous about religion: blind faith. Blind faith is the essential ingredient for all the atrocities and religious wars. However, blind faith is not an inherent aspect of religion. For example, Christianity historically recognized the validity of both scripture and the conclusions of natural reason, i.e. science, and said they are both part of the same Truth. Therefore, they cannot truly contradict in the final analysis. Daniel Dennett's talk at TED http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94
      - dpapathanasiou 19y ago
        Blind faith is the essential ingredient for all the atrocities and religious wars. I'm glad to hear that, as we can certainly agree there. However, I don't see many creationists with such an intelligent and nuanced approach. As for bad scholarship during the middle ages, remember that scholars were under threat of torture or death if they gave the "wrong" answer (Galileo is a prime example, but not the only one). When I hear people claim the world is only a few thousand years old (despite evidence to the contrary), I cannot help but think they want to push us back, and put us under that kind of scholarly intimidation again.
        yters 19y ago
        No, I didn't mean bad scholarship during the middle ages. The notion that there was a dark ages is the result of bad scholarship. There actually wasn't such a thing. Also, Galileo wasn't persecuted for his ideas on cosmology, but for the manner in which he promoted his ideas. Yes, I agree there is an anti intellectual trend with some creationists, as there is with hardcore atheists such as Dawkins. But the theocratic element of American Christianity is actually very small and overblown by a paranoid media. Again, you have the same sort of thing on the atheist side, which is also a very vocalized minority.
        yters 19y ago
        My tutors' blog is a great example of very smart people who take the traditional Christian view of reason and revelation: http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/ http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/

yters 19y ago

You know what I mean. Having sex often is not something we need to do, vs eating and sleeping.

dpapathanasiou 19y ago
Both extremes (not only prurient nymphomania but also the kind of zealous abstinence you're advocating) are bad. Since you seem to be involved in the Creationism / "Intelligent" Design movement, could you explain why fundamentalist Christians are hell-bent (pun intended) on dragging civilization back to the dark ages, where scripture and Church doctrine are more important than science? It seems like a giant leap backwards.
- yters 19y ago
  I didn't mean to imply zealous abstinence, just am against the prurient nymphomania or whatever recommended in that reddit thread. Still, though, I think there is something to be said for virginity. For some reason it was even an ideal in the Greek world before Christianity, e.g. Plato. But it wasn't an ideal in the sense that sex was considered bad, just virginity, voluntarily taken, was a nobler thing. That's another discussion, though. First of all, I'm pretty sure it's commonly accepted that the notion of the 'dark ages' is a product of bad scholarship, though I don't have a good cite for you, so you can ignore that point. As for religion and science, I'm against any attempt to undermine reason, but this means we have to be open to the truth no matter where it lies, whether in today's 'science' (which is very philosophically narrow) or theology. However, this doesn't mean contradiction between the two is resolved by ignoring science. If people really believe theology is supported by the evidence, then they cannot believe there are any real contradictions between science and theology. That's the position of the sophisticated element of the ID movement. Also, keep in mind that the ID movement is not essentially Christian or fundamentalist. For example, Christopher Langan is an ID theorist who is a pantheist, which is pretty interesting.
  - yters 19y ago
    As elaboration, I agree with Daniel Dennett's synopsis of what is dangerous about religion: blind faith. Blind faith is the essential ingredient for all the atrocities and religious wars. However, blind faith is not an inherent aspect of religion. For example, Christianity historically recognized the validity of both scripture and the conclusions of natural reason, i.e. science, and said they are both part of the same Truth. Therefore, they cannot truly contradict in the final analysis. Daniel Dennett's talk at TED http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94
    - dpapathanasiou 19y ago
      Blind faith is the essential ingredient for all the atrocities and religious wars. I'm glad to hear that, as we can certainly agree there. However, I don't see many creationists with such an intelligent and nuanced approach. As for bad scholarship during the middle ages, remember that scholars were under threat of torture or death if they gave the "wrong" answer (Galileo is a prime example, but not the only one). When I hear people claim the world is only a few thousand years old (despite evidence to the contrary), I cannot help but think they want to push us back, and put us under that kind of scholarly intimidation again.
      - yters 19y ago
        No, I didn't mean bad scholarship during the middle ages. The notion that there was a dark ages is the result of bad scholarship. There actually wasn't such a thing. Also, Galileo wasn't persecuted for his ideas on cosmology, but for the manner in which he promoted his ideas. Yes, I agree there is an anti intellectual trend with some creationists, as there is with hardcore atheists such as Dawkins. But the theocratic element of American Christianity is actually very small and overblown by a paranoid media. Again, you have the same sort of thing on the atheist side, which is also a very vocalized minority.
      - yters 19y ago
        My tutors' blog is a great example of very smart people who take the traditional Christian view of reason and revelation: http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/ http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/