Prostitution, Adultry and Christianity

[Toffler]

Many years ago I knew a successful single man. He suffered a freak accident where a book case fell onto his head and he was left in a condition known as "locked in syndrome." He could only move his eyes, but unlike most quadriplegics, he could feel everything normally.

His brother was his caregiver. This unfortunate man had one thing that gave him great pleasure, sex. Once or twice a month, his brother would buy him a prostitute.

I asked my Christian friends at work if they thought this OK, not sinful. They felt it was sinful and that this poor man should find a spouse. They would not condone this behavior and even said if it was their friend or brother, they would not provide him with the prostitute.

Such is the irrationality Christian's exhibit.

Toffler

[Matt R.]

What? So if a non-Christian forms the opinion that prostitution is immoral and does not condone it in this case, his opinion is totally cool and rational right? I am pretty sure "your Christian friends at work" or whoever had their reasons for thinking prostitution was wrong even in this case. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are irrational.

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding your conclusion, but from this: "Such is the irrationality Christian's exhibit." it appears you are stating that because you quizzed a few random people who happen to be Christian at work, and you disagree with them (and this automatically makes their opinion irrational), that all Christians exhibit irrationality. If I find a few atheist friends who think prostitution is always wrong under any circumstances, would I be correct to say "such is the irrationality atheists exhibit"? Think about this for a second.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

What? So if a non-Christian forms the opinion that prostitution is immoral and does not condone it in this case, his opinion is totally cool and rational right? I am pretty sure "your Christian friends at work" or whoever had their reasons for thinking prostitution was wrong even in this case. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are irrational.

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding your conclusion, but from this: "Such is the irrationality Christian's exhibit." it appears you are stating that because you quizzed a few random people who happen to be Christian at work, and you disagree with them (and this automatically makes their opinion irrational), that all Christians exhibit irrationality. If I find a few atheist friends who think prostitution is always wrong under any circumstances, would I be correct to say "such is the irrationality atheists exhibit"? Think about this for a second.



[/ QUOTE ]

Matt,

Atheism isn't a belief system. Christianity is. And any reading of the NT will prove that the dogmatic viewpoints discussed in the OP are rooted in christian teachings.

Like any cookie cutter, your argument applies to some things, but not others. Guess which one this is?

[Toffler]

You are correct. To deny this man one of the few things left to gives him pleasure would be irrational, atheist or Christian. He is, of course, not capable of hiring a prostitute on his own.

The problem is my friends come to their conclusion without thinking. The Bible says it is wrong, therefore it is. There is no need to think as long as they have their cookbook. Just follow the directions. Even though it makes a miserable life even more miserable, they would not change their opinion regardless of the argument.

Now these particular Christians are of the fundamentalist stripe. They believe the Bible literally and this is common in my area of the country. One of them told me that no evidence could persuade her that the world is not about 7,000 years old and that dinosaurs did not roam the earth with humans. This person is a nurse with a BS degree.

She also feels global warming is not a threat. Her reasoning is not that the evidence is poor, but rather that global warming is not part of God's plan.

So, the point I was trying to make was that the conclusions are reached not by reason, not by concern for the welfare of others, but simply because the Rule Book says so. Arguments contrary to their beliefs are rejected out of hand if they do not resonate with the Bible.

Toffler

[Archon_Wing]

People aren't supposed to feel pleasure. They're supposed to suffer to pay for that apple LDO.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is my friends come to their conclusion without thinking. The Bible says it is wrong, therefore it is. There is no need to think as long as they have their cookbook. Just follow the directions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why their actions are immoral. In most cases, following the Rules will have them taking the same action a moral person would, yet they would still not be moral in making them because they are merely roting it.

luckyme

[tarheeljks]

how is atheism not a belief system? it may not draw its "doctrines" from a single text, but it is certainly based on a fundamental belief.

@toffler: you make it sound as though if your friends weren't christians, they would not deny this man sex. if the man's desire was something completely reprehensible, would they be wrong to do so "just b/c the bible says so." would you have less of a problem with their decision if they were atheists/agnostic?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
how is atheism not a belief system? it may not draw its "doctrines" from a single text, but it is certainly based on a fundamental belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is not. It is based on an absence of belief.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is atheism not a belief system? it may not draw its "doctrines" from a single text, but it is certainly based on a fundamental belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is not. It is based on an absence of belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the ideal though. It's not difficult to notice that there is sort of an "fundamental atheist" collection around these parts.

Ironic, isn't it.

[Alex-db]

Its not ironic, its like criticising an "a-racist" for being fundamentalist - they should respect the opposite opinion right?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is atheism not a belief system? it may not draw its "doctrines" from a single text, but it is certainly based on a fundamental belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is not. It is based on an absence of belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the ideal though. It's not difficult to notice that there is sort of an "fundamental atheist" collection around these parts.

Ironic, isn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]

and a lot of tall guys on a basketball court? This is a SMP forum so it tends to attract the SMP type of atheist. I don't have to leave my office to find some very different atheists and at the coffee shop and when I arrive home. In fact, I can think of only one SMP type atheist in any of the ones I know on a first name basis.

Most atheists credit much more practical reasoning for their lack of belief.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

So they do.

In any event, my last comment wasn't intended to be snarky or dismissive.

The irony for me in observing those religious debates in here, is that the vitriol rarely comes from the theist side. Be like water and all that, I guess.

Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So they do.

In any event, my last comment wasn't intended to be snarky or dismissive.

The irony for me in observing those religious debates in here, is that the vitriol rarely comes from the theist side. Be like water and all that, I guess.

Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the street atheists aren't confronting theists toe-to-toe on the theism question. They have to battle them on the actual outcomes of theists in power such as oppressive laws or preferential treatment but for the most part they just mow their lawns and file their taxes.

My point was that SMP is a sampling error. Even the fundies are the 'willing to talk about it' type even if they aren't willing to investigate it.

The vitriol is a natural reaction to constant versions of "tis so, say's right here" block to any real discussion ( which does occur at times).

Your comment - [ QUOTE ]
It's not difficult to notice that there is sort of an "fundamental atheist" collection around these parts.

Ironic, isn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]

seemed to imply some 'atheist creed' at work, or what did the 'fundamentalist' reference seeing that it was in response to the 'atheist belief' nonsense that theists try to peddle. I don't see the connection between the vitriol and the fundamentalist comments in that context.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The vitriol is a natural reaction to constant versions of "tis so, say's right here" block to any real discussion ( which does occur at times).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and the recent spate of posts/OP's may have influenced the fundamentalist atheist comment. I suppose it wasn't clear to me initially whether this was a natural reaction or not. Thanks.

[MaxWeiss]

As always, luckyme hits the bullseye...

[bandito]

I'll share this with you: I'm a man who used to have sex with prostitutes, and it did NOT contribute to making me happy. It causes serious self-esteem issues that take a good deal of work to overcome. I still fight these issues, and I've willingly walked into a lot of crappy situations - and stayed there - that I know if I'd had normal self-esteem, I would have walked out, and spoke up for myself on the way out the door - I've done neither, just silently endured all kinds of abuse from people.
Low self-esteem is very destructive, and hiring prostitutes for sex cannot make a man feel anything but low self-esteem. Also, the loneliness after they leave is 10 times worse than before they arrived - and it's a loneliness and sadness that will eat your heart out for years if you don't find someone who wants to be with you without you having to pay for it.
It's not the best solution for anyone's life. I wish I could tell everything it's done to wreck mine, but I don't want to write a book here.

[superadvisor]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll share this with you: I'm a man who used to have sex with prostitutes, and it did NOT contribute to making me happy. It causes serious self-esteem issues that take a good deal of work to overcome. I still fight these issues, and I've willingly walked into a lot of crappy situations - and stayed there - that I know if I'd had normal self-esteem, I would have walked out, and spoke up for myself on the way out the door - I've done neither, just silently endured all kinds of abuse from people.
Low self-esteem is very destructive, and hiring prostitutes for sex cannot make a man feel anything but low self-esteem. Also, the loneliness after they leave is 10 times worse than before they arrived - and it's a loneliness and sadness that will eat your heart out for years if you don't find someone who wants to be with you without you having to pay for it.
It's not the best solution for anyone's life. I wish I could tell everything it's done to wreck mine, but I don't want to write a book here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for the most part agree with this.

Using sex as a means to happiness is on par with drug use and alcoholism. I can understand the Christian point of view although I am not a Christian. While I don't agree with the way the bible explains it, I do believe he should search for happiness in spirituality not in superficial physical pleasure but from spiritual enlightenment or real love from a real human being. And while I may be inclined to buy him a prostitute once or twice just as I would accept him drinking on occasion, I would never accept prostitution as "the only thing that makes him happy", I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll share this with you: I'm a man who used to have sex with prostitutes, and it did NOT contribute to making me happy. It causes serious self-esteem issues that take a good deal of work to overcome. I still fight these issues, and I've willingly walked into a lot of crappy situations - and stayed there - that I know if I'd had normal self-esteem, I would have walked out, and spoke up for myself on the way out the door - I've done neither, just silently endured all kinds of abuse from people.
Low self-esteem is very destructive, and hiring prostitutes for sex cannot make a man feel anything but low self-esteem. Also, the loneliness after they leave is 10 times worse than before they arrived - and it's a loneliness and sadness that will eat your heart out for years if you don't find someone who wants to be with you without you having to pay for it.
It's not the best solution for anyone's life. I wish I could tell everything it's done to wreck mine, but I don't want to write a book here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for the most part agree with this.

Using sex as a means to happiness is on par with drug use and alcoholism. I can understand the Christian point of view although I am not a Christian. While I don't agree with the way the bible explains it, I do believe he should search for happiness in spirituality not in superficial physical pleasure but from spiritual enlightenment or real love from a real human being. And while I may be inclined to buy him a prostitute once or twice just as I would accept him drinking on occasion, I would never accept prostitution as "the only thing that makes him happy", I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't jerk off, huh? Man, sorry to hear that, but its pretty awesome. Look into it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Using sex as a means to happiness is on par with drug use and alcoholism. I can understand the Christian point of view although I am not a Christian. While I don't agree with the way the bible explains it, I do believe he should search for happiness in spirituality not in superficial physical pleasure but from spiritual enlightenment or real love from a real human being. And while I may be inclined to buy him a prostitute once or twice just as I would accept him drinking on occasion, I would never accept prostitution as "the only thing that makes him happy", I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I like diet pepsi ( artificial sugar).

"real love from a real .." whatever. All the guy can do is blink, so the chit chat required to build a relationship at the neighborhood bowling alley may be a bit much to expect. If it's one of the only pleasures he has left, why should I have guilt by setting it up for him. I'd feel very guilty if I didn't, actually worse than that.
If he wants to snort some white, listen to country music and watch American Idol, I'd have more of a problem :-)
I'll let him tell when he finds it non-fulfilling rather than play guardian nag on the basis of some goof prejudices I may have.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using sex as a means to happiness is on par with drug use and alcoholism. I can understand the Christian point of view although I am not a Christian. While I don't agree with the way the bible explains it, I do believe he should search for happiness in spirituality not in superficial physical pleasure but from spiritual enlightenment or real love from a real human being. And while I may be inclined to buy him a prostitute once or twice just as I would accept him drinking on occasion, I would never accept prostitution as "the only thing that makes him happy", I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I like diet pepsi ( artificial sugar).

"real love from a real .." whatever. All the guy can do is blink, so the chit chat required to build a relationship at the neighborhood bowling alley may be a bit much to expect. If it's one of the only pleasures he has left, why should I have guilt by setting it up for him. I'd feel very guilty if I didn't, actually worse than that.
If he wants to snort some white, listen to country music and watch American Idol, I'd have more of a problem :-)
I'll let him tell when he finds it non-fulfilling rather than play guardian nag on the basis of some goof prejudices I may have.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the point of my previous response was basically: who says the guy is trying to find "ultimate happiness?"

[Iconoclastic]

[ QUOTE ]


His brother was his caregiver. This unfortunate man had one thing that gave him great pleasure, sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone else think the next line would consist of his brother giving him gay sex? Reminds me of that jailcell scene from Blazing Saddles.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
would you have less of a problem with their decision if they were atheists/agnostic?

[/ QUOTE ]

i would

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
What? So if a non-Christian forms the opinion that prostitution is immoral and does not condone it in this case, his opinion is totally cool and rational right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And I doubt many atheists here would say otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure "your Christian friends at work" or whoever had their reasons for thinking prostitution was wrong even in this case. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. We may conclude they are irrational because they are Christians, not due to their stance on this particular issue.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding your conclusion, but from this: "Such is the irrationality Christian's exhibit." it appears you are stating that because you quizzed a few random people who happen to be Christian at work, and you disagree with them (and this automatically makes their opinion irrational), that all Christians exhibit irrationality. If I find a few atheist friends who think prostitution is always wrong under any circumstances, would I be correct to say "such is the irrationality atheists exhibit"? Think about this for a second.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know they are irrational since they are Christians. We also know they took the incorrect moral stance on this particular issue. Since a common manifestation of Christian morality is a depraved view of sex, including a universal condemnation of prostitution, it is reasonable to conclude the former had something to do with their view of the latter. It's not a proof, just a reasonable likelihood.

If an atheist condemned prostitution in this case, I would also strongly suspect some form of irrationality. Being rational implies atheism, but being an atheist is only necessary and far from sufficient to imply rationality.

[riverfish1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What? So if a non-Christian forms the opinion that prostitution is immoral and does not condone it in this case, his opinion is totally cool and rational right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And I doubt many atheists here would say otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure "your Christian friends at work" or whoever had their reasons for thinking prostitution was wrong even in this case. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. We may conclude they are irrational because they are Christians, not due to their stance on this particular issue.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding your conclusion, but from this: "Such is the irrationality Christian's exhibit." it appears you are stating that because you quizzed a few random people who happen to be Christian at work, and you disagree with them (and this automatically makes their opinion irrational), that all Christians exhibit irrationality. If I find a few atheist friends who think prostitution is always wrong under any circumstances, would I be correct to say "such is the irrationality atheists exhibit"? Think about this for a second.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know they are irrational since they are Christians. We also know they took the incorrect moral stance on this particular issue. Since a common manifestation of Christian morality is a depraved view of sex, including a universal condemnation of prostitution, it is reasonable to conclude the former had something to do with their view of the latter. It's not a proof, just a reasonable likelihood.

If an atheist condemned prostitution in this case, I would also strongly suspect some form of irrationality. Being rational implies atheism, but being an atheist is only necessary and far from sufficient to imply rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly does being rational imply atheism? You can be a personally rational Christian as long as you aren't creating proofs of the existence of God. Your rationality for the existence of a supreme being can just be the inner peace of mind that it affords you. Attempting to prove the existence of an object is irrational, but having faith is not. Unless it is rationally and logically proven that God does NOT exist (which I have yet to see, but would be willing to entertain attempts at such proofs), then you can be a perfectly rational Christian.

For those of you claiming that a rational christian is an oxymoron as a christian takes the Bible word for word, there are many christians who see the bible as a sort of parable or guide to living their life and who apply the contradicting lessons shown in it to moral situations in their everyday lives.

For the record, I am thoroughly agnostic so I am not neccesarily defending the christian religion.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Your rationality for the existence of a supreme being can just be the inner peace of mind that it affords you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the very essence of irrationality: to use one's feelings or emotions as a tool of cognition. To accept proposition X as true given that there is no objective evidence to support X (or even contradicts X), because it provides psychological comfort, is essentially the definition of being irrational.

[riverfish1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your rationality for the existence of a supreme being can just be the inner peace of mind that it affords you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the very essence of irrationality: to use one's feelings or emotions as a tool of cognition. To accept proposition X as true given that there is no objective evidence to support X (or even contradicts X), because it provides psychological comfort, is essentially the definition of being irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then to claim that x does not and cannot exist given that there is no objective evidence to contradict x is also being completly irrational.

I will admit that the statement you are arguing against was untrue and not very well thought out but I don't think that this dissproves the whole of my arguement.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your rationality for the existence of a supreme being can just be the inner peace of mind that it affords you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the very essence of irrationality: to use one's feelings or emotions as a tool of cognition. To accept proposition X as true given that there is no objective evidence to support X (or even contradicts X), because it provides psychological comfort, is essentially the definition of being irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then to claim that x does not and cannot exist given that there is no objective evidence to contradict x is also being completly irrational.

I will admit that the statement you are arguing against was untrue and not very well thought out but I don't think that this dissproves the whole of my arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The people who make this claim, however, are called Christians, not atheists. They are also called Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Mormons.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
Your rationality for the existence of a supreme being can just be the inner peace of mind that it affords you. Attempting to prove the existence of an object is irrational, but having faith is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

how does the inner peace of mind affect your feelings on the existence of a supreme being? are you saying you can choose to believe anything you want?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
We know they are irrational since they are Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if it is funny, strange, or stupid that you think Leonhard Euler, Freeman Dyson, and Isaac Newton are/were irrational. Is it a combination of all three?

[ QUOTE ]
We also know they took the incorrect moral stance on this particular issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Says who? You? So you have the ultimate authority on what is correct on a moral issue? Out of curiousity, are you an atheist because you are afraid of someone having a higher moral authority than you on matters? Or is it just because you're really really rational? (in comparison to guys like Euler and Newton, of course)

[ QUOTE ]
If an atheist condemned prostitution in this case, I would also strongly suspect some form of irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Isn't it possible that the prostitution, even in this case, would cause some type of psychological harm long-term (see a previous post in this thread)? I'm not sure about what's going through the guy's head, so I'm just speculating. Or is it only irrational because you say it is?

[ QUOTE ]
Being rational implies atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. Thanks for asserting that as fact though while at the same time being completely wrong.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What? So if a non-Christian forms the opinion that prostitution is immoral and does not condone it in this case, his opinion is totally cool and rational right? I am pretty sure "your Christian friends at work" or whoever had their reasons for thinking prostitution was wrong even in this case. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are irrational.

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding your conclusion, but from this: "Such is the irrationality Christian's exhibit." it appears you are stating that because you quizzed a few random people who happen to be Christian at work, and you disagree with them (and this automatically makes their opinion irrational), that all Christians exhibit irrationality. If I find a few atheist friends who think prostitution is always wrong under any circumstances, would I be correct to say "such is the irrationality atheists exhibit"? Think about this for a second.



[/ QUOTE ]

Matt,

Atheism isn't a belief system. Christianity is. And any reading of the NT will prove that the dogmatic viewpoints discussed in the OP are rooted in christian teachings.

Like any cookie cutter, your argument applies to some things, but not others. Guess which one this is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Snowball,
Since your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post, I cannot decipher what you mean by "Guess which one this is?". You should work on making sense.

If you are implying that because Christianity is a belief system, then all Christians must believe the exact same thing, then you are wrong. Thanks for playing though. We do disagree on things sometimes. For references, see the multitude of different versions of Christianity, and pretty much the last 2000 years.

You have a nice cookie cutter argument there yourself, by the way. In the future, it would be a good idea to point out why my argument "applies to some things, but not others". Also, you should perhaps say which things my argument applies/does not apply to, since your post doesn't make any sense otherwise.

[Peter666]

It's more rational to burn in Hell forever for the sake of a monthly orgasm?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We know they are irrational since they are Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if it is funny, strange, or stupid that you think Leonhard Euler, Freeman Dyson, and Isaac Newton are/were irrational. Is it a combination of all three?


[/ QUOTE ]

Those men certainly held/hold irrational ideas, though obviously we must judge Newton and Euler within the context of when they lived. It's a similar reason why we don't condemn Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves as harshly as we would if they did so today.

Newton in particular wasted many years intently analyzing the Bible and studying alchemy. Even though his religious writings outnumber his scientific work, it is no surprise he is only remembered for the latter. In fact, there is good evidence that his religious beliefs prevented him from figuring out the stability properties of the solar system via perturbation theory, which was ultimately worked out by Lagrange. If Newton had not been religious, he would almost certainly have made more important discoveries.

[ QUOTE ]
We also know they took the incorrect moral stance on this particular issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Says who? You? So you have the ultimate authority on what is correct on a moral issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I also know that it's morally wrong to murder innocent people, and that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old. That I (and most people) know these facts does not require me to be the "ultimate authority."

[ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, are you an atheist because you are afraid of someone having a higher moral authority than you on matters? Or is it just because you're really really rational? (in comparison to guys like Euler and Newton, of course)

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter, though it does not require a very high degree of rationality to be an atheist, so it's not saying much. As I stated earlier, it's not fair to compare anyone today in that respect to Newton and Euler.

[ QUOTE ]
If an atheist condemned prostitution in this case, I would also strongly suspect some form of irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Isn't it possible that the prostitution, even in this case, would cause some type of psychological harm long-term (see a previous post in this thread)?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would obviously be a rational reason to oppose hiring a prostitute in this case, but I am assuming the prostitute did in fact genuinely make the accident victim happy, as the OP stated.

However, we both know alleged concern for his psychological health is a red herring here. We must also ask *why* the victim might feel guilty about receiving services from a prostitute.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
If Newton had not been religious, he would almost certainly have made more important discoveries.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is kinda stupid, You're certain about too much.
[ QUOTE ]
The latter, though it does not require a very high degree of rationality to be an atheist, so it's not saying much.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know what you are talking about..
I don't believe it's rational to believe that the universe came from nothing - why do you think it's rational to believe so? That is as rational as a person claiming to be a poached egg.
The fact that people see the world and think there was a cause for it doesn't make them irrational.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more rational to burn in Hell forever for the sake of a monthly orgasm?

[/ QUOTE ]

False dilemma. It's even more profoundly irrational (if not utterly moronic) to believe that "Hell" exists, or that having orgasms will send someone there.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Newton had not been religious, he would almost certainly have made more important discoveries.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is kinda stupid, You're certain about too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to say "certainly" is perhaps too strong a word here. I should have written "possibly".

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's more rational to burn in Hell forever for the sake of a monthly orgasm?

[/ QUOTE ]

False dilemma. It's even more profoundly irrational (if not utterly moronic) to believe that "Hell" exists, or that having orgasms will send someone there.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then why ask Christians their opinion on the matter? I have never heard of a Christian asking an atheist about the fourth level of mystic contemplation because that would be stupid. Yet atheists are stupid enough to ask moral questions of Christians and then judge their rationality with principles that a Christian by definition does not consider.

It is like a Frenchman asking an Englishman a question in French, and then thinking the Englishman is stupid for not speaking French, even though the Frenchman does not know a word of English himself.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's more rational to burn in Hell forever for the sake of a monthly orgasm?

[/ QUOTE ]

False dilemma. It's even more profoundly irrational (if not utterly moronic) to believe that "Hell" exists, or that having orgasms will send someone there.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then why ask Christians their opinion on the matter? I have never heard of a Christian asking an atheist about the fourth level of mystic contemplation because that would be stupid. Yet atheists are stupid enough to ask moral questions of Christians and then judge their rationality with principles that a Christian by definition does not consider.

It is like a Frenchman asking an Englishman a question in French, and then thinking the Englishman is stupid for not speaking French, even though the Frenchman does not know a word of English himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

...but first translating it into French and then realizing his answer is just as non-sensical...