Wet Dream Forum

This comes from this thread here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3232&start=0 that started a religious discussion.



I think I don't get what you are trying to say. Why you can't explain, whatever that is, that if you could I would agree with you? That sounds to me like is you who thinks has the key of living "a perfect life in harmony" sort of thing by believing in afterlife-related stuff, since by how it sounds, if you could explain it to me I would agree in that you are right, and im wrong. Maybe you can't explain it because it is based on irrational beliefs? Like for example, believing you are going to hell if you enjoy an active sexual life with your partner. Could you please, think deeply, and come to a conclusion of why you are sure of such place being real? I would appreciate that.



If I understood what you are trying to say, that is another typical argument. Everyone that "enjoys sex" feels bad with himself and wants to justify it because of *insert here what your religion has to say about morals*. I explained already in other post, but, have you thought, that maybe, I am just interested on this subject from a "psychological research" point of view? Whatever.




Im not really an "atheist" and no, I don't hate religions. I see how some religions (not all), but some of them have good things, but yes, I don't follow any religion, and believe a religion-less world, with an educated population, would be better. I know this is not going to happen.
I was a christian when I was a kid, but after years of reading, dealing with different people from different religions and nonbelievers, basically experience, I realized following a religion was pointless. The fact that I consider religions pointless, doesn't make me hate religious people.

About me being an "atheist"... you could call me an atheist, but im not technically disapproving the existance of a "God". I may find ridiculous the different and numerous Gods created by mankind with their respective doctrines and holy books, and find some of these extremely childish, but I can't prove or disapprove the concept of a "God" that goes beyond anything you could ever imagine. Since there is no evidence of such thing, I simply don't consider it.

Its not that logical people don't believe in God, its that they can't without evidence.

Similarly, believing in God without any evidence is logically incoherent.

This is a very crucial point that many anti-atheists don't understand for some reason.



I myself don't enjoy masturbation at all nowadays. I don't feel like doing it. It just feels a waste of energy when you have a partner. I obviously did when I was a kid, hello exploding hormones?

Said that, if you are controlled by it, you have a problem, mental or hormonal. And define being "controlled by it". When I was like 15 I think, I used to MB like maybe, 4 times a week. I was of course still a virgin. This didn't control me in any way. It was never a problem for me to success in my marks, be sociable, creative, whatever you may attach normal teenager masturbation as the source of problems related to "being controlled and not being able to do a normal life". If you MB all day, obviously your sexual necessity is overwhelming you and is entering in conflict with your work/studies/social life, then it is really controlling you. When you do it about 4 times a week, specially on that period of your life, I don't see the problem. As you said, you can't deny you feel sexually aroused, you can fake it, by trying to control it, but it will always be there. If not now, it will come back sooner or latter. And you must control it, know when you are getting adicted to it, find a balance, and enjoy it. But just like every other thing that can be addictive. I just don't need to believe in religious doctrines to control myself and find a balance, or totally avoiding it fearing you are going to like it too much and become addicted to.



Again, making wrong assumptions. Why always religious people seem to stereotype every single person that mentions "I enjoy sex" in a sort of mindless hedonistic lifestyle person? You are sorry because I don't see that? Are you serious? Maybe is you who is not seeing how you can combine sex and doing whatever you want by finding a balance, instead of believing you are under control. Maybe your religious beliefs are controlling you, instead of allowing you to take control.

As I stated numerous times already, I don't even drink and don't no any drugs. You don't need to quit sex in order to see other things in life. I love reading, movies, traveling, playing soccer, playing videogames, snowboarding, skating, driving while I listen to music, being a musician, hanging out with my friends, sometimes being alone... I could mention a million activities I do, and yes, at the same time, I love my girlfriend and I love having sex with her. In fact, nowadays we are having sex only one time a week every sunday. After some testing this seems to be the perfect balance for us. If I count the hours of the week I spend making music compared to the hours I spend having sex, the difference is ridiculous.

Some of the members aren't religious e.g. Thursday isn't and his loathing of casual sex has no basis in any such belief. He was however raised Catholic I believe.

check9,

Im not making assumptions or trying to say I have all the answers. A few posts ago you were going after ppl for avoiding sex. If my reponse to you seems harsh, i equally felt the same way from your posts, weither you intended it or not. I will respond to your post later because you're quoting alot.

cool.

I gonna start by quoting a bit of what you wrote.



You seem to think there is no consequence for having sex with who ever you want. But I believe different. So its not a sterotype its reality. Also I am not "religious", not catholic or protestant I just try to follow the Bible.



Videogames, snowboarding, skating, soccer are all short term. Will you be enjoying these activites in a 100 years ? Will you be with your girl in a 100 years ? What will you have gained in a 100 years ?

Again, im not the type of person that has mindless sex with a different girl every weekend. I dont have sex with whoever I want, I have sex if the other person feels like it too. If we both are feeling confortable and trust eachother enough to do it, then theres no problem. The only consequence so far on my experience are good things.

You believe different... can you ellaborate on explaining why? What do you exactly mean by concluding with "So its not a sterotype its reality"? And how you are not religious if you follow the Bible to the point of believing in the existance of the afterlife and going to hell if you do what the Bible states as sin?





In 100 years I will be probably dead, same as you, if technology doesn't come up with something extraordinary, so to speak. In any case, if im still alive, I suppose I will be on my last days. What will I have gained through my life? amazing memories of love, friendships, and happyness. Feeling that I have lived what is real, contemplating the beauty of nature, without being conditioned by a book with ideas about hell, eternal punishments, and the like. If there is an afterlife at all, such state can't be described, because of the fact that to do so, you'll have to die, and then resurrect. And my friend, if you believe in resurrections, I can't do much about it. In any case and again, I would like you to ellaborate on why you are convinced on believing on such things, why you believe the Bible etc.

I guess i can give you 3 major things why I believe.

1.I have seen the spiritual, I have seen demons. Even if I didn't believe in the bible I would have to be a spiritual person. Look up sleep paralysis.

2.Where did we come from? There are only 2 options, either nothing ever existed or something always existed, 0+0=0, absolute nothing creates absoulutly nothing.Something has always existed I believe its an intelligent being becaose we are its product.

3. Why did the witnesses and followers of Jesus allow themselves to be beaten,tortured, thrown to lions for a lie? Thats just not human nature. Even when we torture terrorists they eventually tell the truth. And yes followers of other religions sometimes go threw this, but not their founding members. We have 12 disciples and numerous others who were firsthand eyewitnesses yet they never changed there story.

God as given proof to me, that is why I believe. Evidence of faith does not come from the bible, but evidence of God directs me to the bible.

1. That actually proves nothing, and its a kinda common argument in this subject. Everyone's brain can allow you to see all kind of imaginery. To consider something as evidence, it needs to happen outside your imagination. People has seen plenty of strange things inside their minds, some far more original than the cliched "the demons" I might say, an idea originated inside other peoples mind, then propagated as a meme. Seriously, just because you happened to visualize what you interpreted as a "demon" proves the existence of God?

Scientists talk about evidence when something can be proven. An idea is born inside your imagination, but to be considered as something real has to relate to the real world. Your imaginery is not evidence, and sleep paralysis is not supernatural at all. Everything happens inside the brain, you are not going beyond that. This means you could now go and google for more similar cases where people has reported such imaginery in their heads, and then use such coincidences to state it as evidence. Still proves nothing.

To say more, I don't see such events that strange at all. Religion, specially the Christian, in USA and lots of places on Europe, is everywhere, in all kinds of stuff. Jesus, the Bible, the saints, God... everyone deals with such concepts, some believe it or not, but it is something one has in their subconscience so to speak. At some point, specially to people already believers, such stuff can pop in dreams, SP, and the like. In any case, believing in something doesn't mean it is real, only that you THINK it is.

2. Its not as easy as saying "0+0=0". The only ones who have anything to say here are scientists. Im talking about real scientists who actually know what they are talking about, dedicating their entire lifes in the search of real evidence, people who don't resume what is unknown with "God", as the first humans did to explain what in hell could be that giant circular fire in the sky, for example. There are in fact ideas that discuss that: Something can come from nothing, look up "Hawkings Radiation".

Even if there were a deity or God who created the universe, what makes you think your God is the right one? That's the real question and for that, all Christians would recur inevitably to fallacies in order to answer that, such as "faith", nonstop Bible quoting, or attribute hallucinations as clear and obvious evidence enough. If there is a God at all, it goes beyond any religion, see Einsteins concept of God.

3. Did that even happen? I hardly think the Bible wouldn't be a completely unbiased account of occurrences pretty much out of recorded history. You don't think the church had an agenda when they made the Bible?
In any case, the "founding members" argument as you are trying to use it to sort of demonstrate: "see, it was not a fraud, because even the founders stayed true" proves nothing. You can't resume it as easy.

When a man has nothing but hope left, and has devoted its entire life on it, he will do whatever it takes to keep what little hope he has left alive. A man with no hope is broken. A broken man is useless. A useless man is lost. No one wants to feel useless and lost. They were desperate for change and answers. Redemption from their own grievances.

In any case, what you have explained with that is a typical situation of why a person converts to a certain religion.
About 15 to 20 percent of the population experience SP; look into "early sleep paralysis". Devout hindus, buddhists, muslims, and atheists all have experienced this. If you want to attribute an hallucination to some kind of proof of the afterlife, God, etc, and then relate it to the Bible, and then consider this as a lifechanging experience, and then base your actions and thoughts according to given doctrines, is not making you more special than me, or than anyone else. Is not taking us anywhere beyond what we know already, only scientists like people working on the LHC is really pushing the boundaries of what is known in order to get real answers.

check9,

Now you know im hallucinating? I think your justifying your actions you don't want proof or truth. You have decided how you are gonna live, nothing is gonna stop you. I gave you my reasons for belief, so I'm done.

What actions I am trying to justify? Can't you come up with anything better, or at least be clear? In any case im just trying to have a rational disscusion with a religious person, something you seem don't want to continue doing so, for whatever reason. What proof or truth I don't want? Sure I want truth and proof of God if that is what you are talking about, but you are not delivering any at the moment. How do you know you where NOT hallucinating? What makes you so sure that such imaginery proves the existance of hell, God, the afterlife, etc? How do you discern an hallucination from a "divine signal"? Have you actually readed what I wrote?

I asked you to go deeper in the reasons for your belief, but seems you can't go beyond what you already stated, and what you already stated remains as irrational belief, by attributing mind imaginery as evidence enough to believe in God and pick up the Bible and base your life around certain doctrines. Maybe interpreting such mind imaginery as a "divine signal from God" makes you happy, special, and comfortable, makes you not interpret my arguments seriously as you think "yeah, whatever he says hes going to burn in hell forever so I already won this discussion lol", and gives you a sort of guide for your life, but again, proves nothing about the existance of hell, God, the afterlife, and the like; therefore, living your life by following such doctrines, limiting your actions, by avoiding what is considered sin in order to get a "pleasuring eternal afterlife", ergo not fully enjoying life by being 100% convinced that this is just a test, and that an eternal life follows, and maybe actually getting to the point of totally convincing yourself of enjoying this life by accepting not sinning and making a sort of "inversion" on this life for a "good" afterlife's sake, remains as an irrational mindset until proven otherwise, something I don't see happening anytime soon.

Thats the point, any proof give to you would be dismissed as an hallucination.

Hey Check9,

may I contribute to the discussion? I too am a Christian, and I'd like to explain why I am one. After dabbling in apologetics and debates on this subject long enough, I have concluded that being a Christian is a choice. What I mean is that there is no "proof" for the existence of God (like a proof for the Pythagorean theorem), and neither is there such a "proof" for the non-existence of God. It all boils down to a preference of world views.

1) The Theistic Worldview:

a) An objective moral law exists.

b) Reason is a tool for us to find/see truth.


2) The Atheistic Worldview:

a) All morals are subjective and are derived from the "sic volo, sic jubeo"

b) All behavior (including reasoning) has only one sole purpose: to increase survivability.


Both world views can be justified fully. I happen to prefer the first worldview, perhaps due to my upbringing, or perhaps due to my "innate sense of the fitness of things," as Sir Arthur Eddington would say. I used to think that no one in their right mind would choose the atheistic worldview once they understood its repercussions, but alas I was wrong--I have met those who honestly prefer it over mine. Note that I labeled the first worldview as the Theisic--not the Christian--worldview: I feel that it is quite pointless to edify Christianity if you do not even believe in Theism, like teaching quantum mechanics to an algebra student. Sorry if my sentences seem rather choppy; it's past midnight and I'm very sleepy.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Hey guys, ive been reading this arguing interesting btw

I have to say that check9 has made obviously the best points so far and that replying that to him sounds like "i got out of arguments". Can you give some 100% clear proof "of it" that doesn't require seeing it inside your mind?

Your reply reminds me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

notice the fallacy that is the title with the use of the word "cruelly". I mean what other answer did you expect to that? It may have been said "nicely?" (and I think Dawkins was really pollite) but not clearer. Dawkins is being as honest as that poor dude.

i could understand at some extent what you are saying if you believed in the type of "God" Einstein described, not in a personified God with the obligatory tales and the mandatory cliched rules seen on every religion known to (and made by) mankind.

Hey lazery,

would you care to explain why my reasons exclude such a deity?

Thanks

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

While no one may be able to irrefutably prove the existence of god, I look at check9's motivation behind writing so many words in so many posts. To me, he is simply going to great lengths to justify to others, and therefore to himself, a lifestyle where he claims to obtain fulfillment in having casual sex with multiple partners with little or no long term commitment. It disturbs him when others don't adopt his lifestyle, which implies to me that deep down he feels guilt.

He seems to be 'pushing' his lifestyle as the only rational choice, but whether god (or the christian view of god) exists or not, his chosen lifestyle is but one of many. I've tried to point out to him that other people may want something other than a life full of one night stand with girls they find in bars, even if they don't believe in god. It is not a simple 'either or' situation. If god does not exist, it does not mean that the only logical lifestyle is one night stands. That is why I question his motivation. Why is it so important to him that we all start adopting HIS lifestyle?

Maybe down deep he is afraid that he does not have all the answers after all, and is afraid that he may be wasting his life. If he can show that we can't 'prove' the existence of god, it makes his one night stand lifestyle OK. It is not logical on his part, but I believe that is what he is after. That is why I see no reason to argue with him point by point any more.

i've been reading through check9's posts and i've noticed that you always reply him by insisting in trying to make him look like what he describes as a "mindless hedonistic lifestyle" person, trying to justify his own lifestyle etc, even if he has repeatdly explained with extended detail how he is the opposite of that. The fact that you always end your arguments like that makes me believe that who is trying to justify his own lifestyle is in fact you. you seem to not like to idea of someone enjoying a sexual life and being spiritually fulfilled at the same time.

may i know if you are a religious person too? if so what religion you follow? in what level do you abstain? its hard to discuss about this if i dont know that

if you also are staying a virgin to "not go to hell" like the other fellow said, what you said about "not having all the answers" its quite funny.



so its more logical to think that hell exists and that you are going to burn there forever because you and a girl wanted to have sex? explain please, be clear there



because the bible was created by makind, general lack of evidence etc

cheers

>because the bible was created by makind, general lack of evidence etc

Funny, I didn't mention anything about the Bible in my original post. And "general lack of evidence" is too vague of a phrase for me to comment on.

I was establishing the Theistic Worldview, of which Christianity is a subset of. Why bother talking about Christianity if you don't even believe in a deity? It's like building the roof without having the foundation. And in laying down my reasons for the Theistic Worldview, you immediately pointed out that my reasons excluded the possibility of Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong). Intending to do the exact opposite, I was confused with your comment and asked you to elaborate.

But anyhow, about the Bible. In historiography, in order to determine the reliability of a manuscript there are three basic tests which you apply: 1) the bibliographic test, 2) the internal evidence test, and 3) the external evidence test. Number 2 asks "is the Bible internally coherent?" while number 3 asks "is the Bible coherent with external resources (such as other manuscripts during the same period)?" Now as far as I know, the answer to those two questions is pretty much YES. There are minor discrepancies, which are to be expected according to the laws of statistics, but all are quite negligible (at least as far as I know). The bibliographic test determines reliability according to how many copies of the manuscript you have. The more manuscripts you have, and the more they are similar they are to each other, the better your chances are at reconstructing the original manuscript. Now we have found over 24,000 manuscripts for the Bible, the most for any historical document. Number two on the list is the Iliad by Homer with about 640 manuscipts...not even close to the Bible's. Hence I believe that the Bible is a reliable historical text.

You could also cite your reasons as to why you think the Bible is as historically accurate as Pinnochio, but I predict that this will eventually become a game of citing sources, since neither of us are actual archeologists/ historians. I would prefer us to stick with arguments via philosophy, if that is ok with you.

All the best

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Because thats how it should be done, talking about it instead of growing up children inside it. talking about all the existing religions to them instead of basing all knowledge around a certain religion as the absolute right one (the christian one as the most frequent one here) thanks to their parents worldview, not letting them choose to believe/not believe/choosing what religion is the one they want to believe. i see lots of posts of kids on this forum making threads about abstainance and most of them for religious reasons if u ask them

i know there is also people that has converted to christianity without growing up in a christian family by for example interpreting an hallucination as a message of god, deciding to believe what the bible says for whatever reason, you tell me, I have no idea personally why someone non believer would decide to go christian and believing in the things you have to believe to be a christian without any, lets say "special" cause/happening.

i dont need to believe in god it to talk about christianity, same as i dont need to believe in Zeus to talk about greek mythology, etc. i talk about it, i just don't take it as serious as interpreting it as something that actually exists, as I base my life and knowledge in what is real, and in theories that apply to the real world/are expected to be right but still not confirmed (work in progress as science doesnt stop unlike religions who are set already as the final answer, so you have faith in what is said or not). the problem with people like Texanguy is that he thinks people who doesnt believe in god is actually afraid to not have all the answers, while not having all the answers is why things are still exciting (specially for scientists that try to describe reality/the origin of everything/etc). i dont get the analogy he is doing there by mixing sex with this anyway. at the end of the day he looks to me like the other dude, like "im going to stay a virgin because i believe in this or that because my religion says it, and if its not true at the end, just in case", same as what it seems that he thinks about check9 or any normal person who doesn't follow a religion and had sex with a girl outside marriage: "just in case god doesn't exist im going to stay having sex outside marriage since god can't be proved to exist". the difference in these two arguments is that the non-religious person couldn't care less about the existence/non existence of god to have sex with more than a girl in all his entire life outside marriage (and we are not talking about a different girl every night) and is not doing things "just in case", while the religious person already genuinely believes (totally convinced or just in case, depending on the level of faith you have about it) in the existance of hell, and what you have to do/behave like to avoid it (see "a god that plays the dice").

bonbon i would like to know if you are a religions person too, may i what religion you follow, in what level do you abstain and why exactly (is hell involved maybe?)

cheers

Hey lazery,

like the rest, I am a Christian. I don't believe that masturbation is explicitly a "sin" as long as it's under your control, not the other way around. Even so, I do believe that a life without masturbation is better than one with it. I see it the same way as junk food: it's really okay if you eat it once in a while and are not addicted to it, but it's better if you don't eat it altogether. Unfortunately I don't have first hand evidence for all this stuff, because ever since third grade the longest I've abstained is one week (yes it's terrible, I know). As far as hell, yes I do believe there is one--but not the literal lake of burning fire one. Hell is, by definition, the absence of God. While on this Earth you are not completely detached from Him; you may still turn to Him if you wish. But there will be a time when it will be too late to do so--not because He will not permit you any longer, but because either your will has been totally enslaved by your sinful desires, or because you have been completely blinded to Him by your pride.

If you believe that you have no need for Christianity whatsoever, then that is the end of the matter. "Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realized that there is a Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power--it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor" (C.S.Lewis, "Mere Christianity").

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

well im not talking about masturbation at all but having sex. i myself not masturbate at all since i lost my virginity at 17, because masturbating feels like nothing compared to sex since then (of course i used to mb like the rest of teenagers). right now im single again (unfortunately) but I spect to change this when i have time for some fun to hang out and meet new people this summer, but right now I stay focused on my goals so 0 sex until I finish my exams (this shows you can enjoy it without being addicted to it, which are different things). anyway, as ive said on my log: "btw not really first time I do this. i've done abstainance for a week or so before if i had an exam that was really hard, but i wouldn't normally do this if I had a gf lol. Im not sure if it really makes me stay more focused at all, maybe is just a placebo since i remember having plenty of sex with my gf last year and being very relaxed and feeling good to study and get nice marks after it ".

basically, having sex/not having sex is totally irrelevant to get my goals done, like everything if you are addicted to something then you have a problem, but you can enjoy sex as much as you want if u and ur girl want to, if it doesnt interfere on other aspects of your life is only a problem if you want it to be.



Well u believe at the end of the day that there is a punishement for being a sinful person. can you describe more exactly that "Hell is, by definition, the absence of God"?

if I understood well if what you believe is right i would be right now "in hell" because i lost my virginity at 17 (obviously outside marriage) with a very nice girl i knew from high school for some years ago with whom i had what i can guarantee you one of the best moments in my life. i still remember her and that place right near the beach in the end of high school trip and im just happy by thinking about it.
How can this beautiful event be sinful/puts me into "hell"/something i have to repent for? please.

also lol about the "pride" argument. you gotta love the mentality that believes that when an individual lacks belief in one less God than the majority does and does _NOT_ believe that the Creator of All Reality has a special interest in his eternal existance and thusly follows his activities daily, he is being an arrogant piece of shit...

>>How can this beautiful event be sinful/puts me into "hell"/something i have to repent for? please.

Okay, what's happening here is that there's a confusion of world views. You want an explanation of the Christianity from those in the theistic worldview, while expecting them to explain using resources only confined in the atheistic worldview. This seems perfectly fine for you, because you think that the theistic worldview is a subset of the atheistic one. We Christians, however, see it the other way around--therefore to us your demand is an impossible one. It's like asking a guitar to make music without its strings, or a pencil to write without its lead.

As I said in my first post, in the atheistic worldview all behavior has only one sole purpose, and that is to increase survivability. That's the reason you could detest behavior such as killing and stealing. If everybody were murderers, the human race wouldn't survive for very long. Having sex, however, fits perfectly in the kind of behavior which you should embrace, since it creates life and (you hope) increases the survivability of the human race. All this is happening on the instinctual level. Nothing is inherently "wrong" or "right". All our behavior is just "programmed" by evolution to increase survivability, since those systems that aren't "fit" enough eventually die off.

In the theistic worldview, however, there are certain things that are inherently "right or "wrong" because there exists an objective law giver--God. The majority of people in this world fits into this worldview. And through the different cultures, ages, and times, all theists believe in upholding what we call the 'Cardinal' virtues--namely, prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. The fact that we must fight to uphold these virtues also imply an important fact--that we do not indeed naturally do what we "ought" to do.

On the plateau of the theistic worldview lies specific religions such as Hinduism and Christianity. These different religions differ from each other because each has its own unique set of "divine revelation". All the major religion believe that we humans are imperfect (when pitted against our "oughtnesses"). And our conception of morality is no exception to corruption. Thus even though we agree on the 'Cardinal' virtues, there are other virtues which we have "forgotten", so to speak: and each religion has something different to say about these "lost" morals. For Christianity, these morals are the 'Theological' virtues, which include humility, forgiveness, hope, faith, love, and (you guessed it) chastity.

So now you see why I said that it is quite pointless to talk about Christianity if you don't even believe in a deity. You want us to explain our morals on your terms: in the level where survivability is all that matters. Well, there are a lot more important things to us than just that. It's like an illiterate picking up a book and saying "Humbug! Tell me where is the novel! I don't see it. All I see are paper and ink!" You, in response, mentioned that you don't need to believe in Zeus to talk about Greek mythology. A logical fallacy was committed--Zeus is the subset of Greek mythology, not the other way around. And, yes, if you don't believe in Greek mythology, there is no point in talking about Zeus.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

This conversation seems to be as much about a philosophy of life as just religion. It's basically contrasting a hedonistic lifestyle where you live for the moment with a more spiritual one that emphasizes growth, control, and longer term rewards.

I'm not an expert in world religions, but I do know that Buddhism borders on being a philosophy of life rather than a belief in a deity that tells us what to do and not do. They stress the rewards of a moral code and believe that a healthy lifestyle and philosphy of life are intertwined. They don't believe in MB for mental and physical health reasons. I find it interesting that some of the claims they make about MB in terms of energy, etc, correlates with the things you (Bonbon) said about MB being negatively connected to eating right, exercise, feeling better, and relating to people. They see it as part of an all around healthy and spiritual (as opposed to explicitly religious) lifestyle.

While we may see them as similar in our Western world, but Yoga is quite different from Buddhism. It is even more of a philospohy and recipe for healthy living, but many branches of it see MB in the same light as detrimental to spiritual and physical health. And of course any religion or philosophy that discourages MB expects and allows for WD's, and sees them as normal.

My point is that you don't have to abstain from MB or casual sex simply because some religion says "Thou shalt not enjoy thyself". It is seen by major religions and philosophies around the world as a better and healthier lifestyle, both physically and mentally, to live a less hedonistic and and more spiritually based lifestyle. Of course, that won't convince anyone who sees it all as 'religious nonsense'. I'm just trying to point out that the argument over lifestyles and their physical and mental consequences extend beyond simple Christian prohibition. At the very least, you don't have to justify a more spiritually based lifestyle simply in terms of Christian 'rules'. 'Higher values' are almost universal.

As for MB, I think it's interesting that lazery hasn't MB'd in years. Even now, when he has no opportunity for sex and may not for months, MB is not on the table. This is just one example which shows that MB is a habit and that it can be gotten rid of. As you (Bonbon) discussed, you can see positive effects from not MBing. Diverting sexuality away from MB doesn't mean that it is all gone. It can become more generalized and energizing. An increase in testosterone can feel good and be healthy, and you can get an attitude that you don't want to waste your sexuality and energy in MB. You can feel and express your sexuality by NOT MBing. And of course you can have orgasms the natural way in WD's.

Edit: it seems my iPhone that I typed this out on won't allow me to edit the bottom of my post, I wanted to add that wet dreams only feel amazing because when you are dreaming you are tripping balls on dimethyl tryptamine released during REM. Regular physical sexual activity is far healthier and no less natural. Wet dreams can be cool, but why exclusively seek them? Exploration is educational as well as incredibly pleasurable!
@bonbon
I resent your statement that the atheistic lifestyle is entirely survival based. Like any lifestyle, including any theistic lifestyle Christian or otherwise, the atheist lifestyle is utter hedonism. Actions are made entirely with the intention of bringing pleasure to the actor. This is why atheist and nhihilists such as myself can enjoy art and find fullfllment in doing a lot more than trying to stay alive. It is also the reason theists had to invent hell to get others to believe in their religion. Imagine if a man told you his god wanted everyone to follow a strict moral code but there was no punishment of any kind for not doing so. You would laugh in his face! Really the pursuit of knowledge and the creation of art are the best things to be doing while certainty remains unnatainable. Those who vainly cling to their beliefs are the true sinners, challenging your beliefs until you have none is literal logical enlightenment. And everyone is a hedonist, ignorance allows people to get away with doing it wrong.

@Texan
I would totally agree with you if satisfying sexual urges wasn't proven to be psychologically beneficial and if sex wasn't proven to be incredibly healthy. Furthermore, masturbating or partaking in sexual activity when one feels the urge to do so is more akin to putting on a jacket when one is cold rather than an addiction or habit. Sexual urges are our nuerotransmitters alerting us to the fact our brains could do with some more of the chemicals sex releases just as getting cold is our body's way of telling us we probably need to warm up somehow. I guess you could say we are addicted to staying warm, nourishing our bodies, and breathing. But why kick the habit if an addiction is provably beneficial (within our mutually perceived definition of reality anyway, it's sort of impossible to prove anything but it is oh so convenient to accept the conventions of what we sense to be real)? That is what irks me about religion, it isn't provably beneficial, especially when considering the pursuit of knowledge and the detrimental effect on an individual's logical thought process produced by an astronomical amount of intentional and blatant ignorance required to believe in the intangible, let alone the tangible. Our brains seem to be wired for religion, I will give you that. But indoctrination is to logical conclusion as heroin is to sex. The first is a pollutant, the second is a natural and entirely internal process.

There seems to be various schools of nihilism, and it's unclear to which you belong. But nihilism seems to basically reject what we see as reality in some form or another, and rejects values as meaningless human constructs.

I don't have time right now for a long discussion, but I basically disagree with you on two issues.

'Inventing' something that doesn't exist implies that the people motivated to do the inventing knew for a fact that it did not exist. That implies a class of people using religion that they themselves do not believe in to control others. I don't think that is true. The 'inventors' are also believers. Of course there are hypocrites and liars everywhere, but I disagree with your scenario about how hell was invented. Religions are run by imperfect human believers, not atheists calculatingly using religion to control others.

You state this, especially the 'incredibly healthy' part, with a sense of absoluteness. While your nihilist philosophy may leave you value free, even you might object to rape or sex with your mother or little sister. I think you might not have sex in a crowded street. In other words, try as you might, you will almost certainly evolve some 'value system' or code of conduct concerning when, how, and with whom to have sex. Once some kind of value system is established (in other words, once you believe in not raping your sister), violation of that value system can lead to unpleasant feelings and regret. Thus sex is not always 'incredibly healthy'. It has psychological consequences.

To me, this is simply one example of value systems evolving from making choices and seeing consequences in everyday life.

You can argue that value systems, and a code of behavior that may derive from them, are nothing more than human inventions, but they nevertheless exist. You 'believe' that art is good. You 'believe' that knowledge is good, You 'believe' that you have no beliefs. You 'believe' what you are saying. Saying you have no beliefs is a logical contradiction.

Over years, centuries, and generations, value systems evolve. Why do some survive and others not? Your assertion that it stems from people trying to control others doesn't hold water. I would argue that value systems evolve that provide humans with more happiness and survival as a species. You are free to reject them, but I think that 'until you have none' is a logical contradiction. You can't exist as a thinking and conscious entity without beliefs -- even if you 'believe' that you can.

I'm simply saying modern religions continue to exist because of the motivation to repent hell provides, not because of a superior moral code. It's also apparent that most religions have been created or altered in some way to control people, simply because they govern how followers act and think. Religions are very effective brainwashing tools, the leaders or founders of a religion don't have to have malicious intent to be doing harm with their manipulations; manipulations which at least encourage ignorance by being entirely illogical, while some dogmas manage to be harmful. When the ignorant are given power they tend to do even more damage than those that are intentionally controlling people, even if their actions are in the name of righteousness. Look at Hitler, the leaders of The Inquisition, and any culture that has ever fought a holy war: They were all convinced their cause was just by their respective religions, convinced others as well, and have really caused a lot of strife. I'm not saying their religions were evil, I'm just saying religions act as powerful social machines that tend to be led by complete idiots and very often end up killing people because of it. Of course, those are extreme examples, but there is no way to gauge if a religious doctrine is entirely harmless without extensive research and revision, and if the person writing it has entirely illogical "divine" intentions they won't stop to think about it. To sort of summarize, religions posses a potential to convince otherwise reasonably rational people that fantastic ideas are the utter truth, simply because they are told they will suffer eternally for not believing it. religions cause a lot of damage and never do any good that a non-denominational organization couldn't. I know they have been proven to be an effective psychological cure for some people, but LSD has been proven to be 5 times as effective as the AA's blatantly religious program at curing alcoholism: a whopping 50% who don't have to live the rest of their lives in ignorance compared to the AA's 10% that end up drooling religious drones. Don't get me started on the DEA and the ridiculous political climate surrounding psychoactive substances. But psychedelics are extremely good at activating the religious centers of the brain for therapeutic reasons without stealing the wealth of the masses, breeding corruption, raping altar boys, killing millions of people, and trying to assimilate others into their circle of delusional contentment. Among other things.



By incredibly healthy I mean it affects your body and mind in a positive way chemically, if you have a psychosis keeping you from enjoying normal sex I suggest therapy, and maybe MDMA if it's post traumatic. And yes, I definitely would not have sex with my mother if I was anything approaching sober, but that's more regarding what I find pleasurable. Rape too, sex is awesome because it's about making someone else happy, the female body doesn't spark enough lust for me on its own that I would want to take advantage of a woman in any way, even if I could get away with it. However, I have no doubt that I can achieve mental states where I would partake in these deviant activities, I just see no reason to so I don't. It's less of a belief, more of a conclusion that's ready to be changed if enough evidence is presented. Saying I have no beliefs is not a logical contradiction at all. I speak in absolutes because doing otherwise tends to be unwieldy, yet I don't necessarily believe what I'm saying. My statements are what makes the most logical sense given the information I posses at the moment. The whole concept of belief is flawed because our mental state is constantly changing, just as our environment is constantly changing, whether we expect it to or not. When one forms a belief he or she assumes it will never change and charges it with emotion. If enough evidence is presented to prove their belief to be illogical they tend to cling to it and act offended rather than accepting the truth. It takes a major event in someone's life to change their beliefs in most cases, until they pass that threshold they remain ignorant detriments upon human intellectual advancement. For example, senile old college professors who have had their prized theory disproved are sometimes unable to accept the fact they were wrong and progress in their field remains lethargic until they die or step down, losing the academic authority they were using to keep the breakthrough squelched. Therefore, beliefs are a flawed cognitive mechanism and I have chosen to do away with them. Our brains are the only tools we have to perceive, interpret, and store information regarding reality, we should use them efficiently if we ever plan to get anywhere. Do away with codes of conduct and simply act logically based on your present situation, including seeking some serious help if you can't handle sex emotionally. Dude, you have no idea what you are missing, and you could use the oxytocin.


Further clarification: you don't have to try to end up controlling others. Christian parents don't indoctrinate their children maliciously, that doesn't mean that it isn't hurting the kids or society as a whole.


It's quite possible, humans are unique among negantropic constructs (ordered systems of molecules that exist simply because they produce more entropy than they displace) because we like to think we posses free will beyond our perceived ability to choose between equally desirable decisions, and feel the need to something to believe because of it. Our belief mechanism is just another part of the equation, however: when said christian parents force religion upon their kids they alter the way the kids will act in a negative way because they infect their brains with ignorance. When presented with a certain situation you act a certain way after weighing it against your predisposed notions. A healthy set of predisposed notions are all constantly scrutinized and discarded or elevated when evidence is found that they are illogical, harmful, useful, or important. Beliefs are like viruses, infecting our preconceived notions and gumming up our ability to metacognate efficiently. If one invests any willpower clinging to a disproved belief the virus has done it's job and devolution of our collective knowledge base follows. Beliefs throw the pursuit of knowledge into retrogression! Anything but constant efficient, open-minded arbitration of our preconceived notions results in ignorance, ignorance everyone possesses because perfect cognitive thought such as this is impossible to achieve. But, if we are not hindered by beliefs we filter out as much ignorance as we can every time we are presented with information we are able to comprehend, which results in a higher level of actual intelligence and knowledge. Lack of beliefs is nihilism, and nihilism is nothing more than a dedication to processing information as efficiently as possible while avoiding ignorance and delusion. I don't look down upon non-nihilists, but I often abhor their senility and benightedness, and assert that nihilism is by far the best logical philosophical conclusion anyone can reach. Definitely prove me wrong if you have a rock solid logical argument, there's nothing I enjoy more than reformatting my outlook on life. I've actually changed it a few times based on the conclusions I've come to while writing this post. Cheers!
edit: I tend to treat nihilism as lack of beliefs, but really conventional nihilism is lack of belief in morals, which for me simply stems from my general lack of beliefs. To be more specific, I argue an epistemological nihilist viewpoint in this post. Epistemological nihilism is basically absolute skepticism.

Hey Nihilist,

actually when you said that "the atheist lifestyle is utter hedonism" you're exactly right. I actually mentioned it in my first post, when I wrote:

2) The Atheistic Worldview:

a) All morals are subjective and are derived from the "sic volo, sic jubeo"

b) All behavior (including reasoning) has only one sole purpose: to increase survivability.

The "sic volo, sic jubeo" is pretty much hedonism. You're right, I should've mentioned it again in my last post to lazery. But I would disagree with the notion that all other belief systems are also UTTER hedonism. As I said in my response to lazery, there exists higher laws and morals than just survivability and hedonism for the Christian. Yes, pleasure itself is good and should be sought PROVIDED that it doesn't contradict those higher laws.

Now, of course your response will go something like: 'But why do you obey those higher laws and morals? Is it not to gain pleasure in heaven?"
For the novice Christian, the answer is certainly "yes", especially if he was a prior atheist. But the more advanced a Christian gets in his walk with Christ, the more he'll desire Christ for its own sake, rather than for the sake of pleasure. At this point, any pleasure he receives from his walk with Christ will be a 'proper' reward, rather than a 'mercenary' one. I did not go to religion to make me happy, but because it is the truth--something which I ought to seek for its own sake.

Now as far as "challenging your beliefs until you have none". You meant that to be an overstatement of the scientific method, right?

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Howdy bonbon, if you get the time could you possibly present your counter-arguments to a few more of my points? I'm sure you disagree with many more of the things I said and I'm curious as to exactly why.


Yes, you ought to seek the truth, the pursuit of knowledge is a noble pursuit indeed. First off, you seek the truth because you find pleasure in the truth, as do I, otherwise we would not seek the truth. Feeling that we are doing something is the "right" thing to do is an emotion we desire, so we take pleasure in it. Wrist-cutters find pleasure in pain, so they are hedonists as well. Everyone is a hedonist because every conscious action we take is in order to maximize pleasure, whether or not it is through an explicitly pleasurable emotion. You follow the tenants of Christianity because you find pleasure in perceiving yourself as an upstanding individual. The reason one seeks to avoid going against their religion's laws when seeking pleasure is because of the guilt that would result, ruining the pleasure their religious participation gives them. However, please explain to me how Christianity can be defined as truth? As I think I solidly proved in my post, all any religion does is undermine the human search for the truth. Is it so hard to accept that there is no truth yet, that it will take a lot of technology and many generations of intellectual advancement to find anything approaching undeniable certainty? Christianity is a delusion that its participants find pleasurable to partake in because, as you stated, they feel they ought to seek the truth and indoctrination has convinced them that the truth has already been handed to us by some higher being.


Less of an overstatement, more of a definition. The scientific method is the only way to achieve pure logical advancement of knowledge. When applied correctly it requires one to discard all beliefs as you cannot prove anything to such an extent that it should be believed in. This is because, with the knowledge we currently have, we cannot trust perception or logic enough to even approach certainty, so no confidence should ever be invested in any conclusions we reach since those conclusions may have to be discarded. This is why scientists call their empirically proven hypotheses "theories." Believing in something that cannot even be proven empirically is sheer ridiculousness. By no means am I against optimistic human emotions like hope, trust, or love. But believing in them is illogical and unnecessary. Belief attempts to combine emotion with knowledge, an extremely bad idea.

Hey NIhilist,

I'm afraid this is where our world views break apart from each other. If you want to believe that every action we take is purported for pleasure, well there's nothing I could do to convince you otherwise. It honestly isn't a very bad assumption (certainly a great deal of people operate with that mindset!). But I will choose to believe that moral platitudes ought to be done for its own sake, rather than for the sake of pleasure, and that it often leads you to situations where no pleasure--only pain--is the outcome. As I said in my first post, in the end it really boils down to a choice; there is no 'proof' for a worldview, like there are no proofs for the basic axioms of mathematics.

It seems like we also have a fundamental disagreement on how the scientific method works. All of my science teachers--at least the ones that have talked about this issue to me--and I see it as an "iron sharpens iron" process (I'm a physics major, by the way). Scientists attack each other's hypothesis that the truth may be refined, just as the two iron blades clash against each other so that they may become sharper. Now it may take an infinite amount of time before the perfect "sharpness" will be reached--just as it will take an infinite amount of time for a graph to actually reach an asymptote--but there is definite direction, and a definite progress. We might in the future discover that Earth is not really a sphere, yet more of an oblong shape; but we will never revert to the idea that Earth is flat. You, however, seem to pose the idea that there really is not absolute truth which we are trying to head to: that there is no direction or progress in science and knowledge, that today we might believe 1+1=2 but in the future it very well might become 1+1=922,891,236,482,376,423.01

As for the concept of religion as a stagnation of "truth". Well, in theory, religion should hardly interfere with the progress of science: for religion tells us "what ought to be" and science tells us "what is"--two very different epistemologies.

I think I've covered all your points, have I not???

Bon

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

again, you can have a spiritually fulfilled life while having an active sexual life with a person you love, is it that hard to understand? maybe you haven't tried it at all, have you? if you believe you are going to live more years, or be generally more healthier by nonstop abstaning than someone who has a decent sex life (has sex 1 to 3 times a week), good luck for you. spiritually fulfilled means more to me than not having an orgasm for months, or even years.
in a week i'll be near a month of non having an orgasm, I feel now that I really need a girlfriend, because I KNOW what im missing, but I dont feel like masturbating to fix it. WHAT i would win if I decided now to ignore what i feel and say: "OK, im going to abstain nonstop" other than having the ilusion that im controlling mistical energies? I would rather find a girl i like and, if she likes me too, and make love until next day. does my morals get lower than yours by admiting that?

my record for abstainance was a crazy winter of 2006 where I had my first real academic challenges ever. 4 months of total abstainance (thats why im already "trained" for it and is not that hard to me to do it for a week or something") of course, to do this I was single at that time, you would need to be totally mental to do it with some attractive lady around.
in the 4th month i actually totally cut MB out. i obviously still liked girls, since i am a normal person, but i was "controlling" my sexual lust to a degree that i was actually surprised to that i would able to achieve.

at this point, I considered all the possibilities, so my question was: "why the fuck would I continue doing this? i just finished my exams, did really good, winter is coming to an end soon... what im going to gain from this? do I really feel better alone than being with a girl?".
When the summer started and I meet my gf, the answer was clearly: fuck no, sir. I felt better on so many levels, than being "on my own" with my "controlled energy in harmony" with the occasional WD.

after "being on both places" and having experienced both feelings of abstainance and non abstainance (having sex with a girl you like 1 to 3 times a week), i felt a billion times better, more happy, after spending the summer with my gf.




you talk like because of the fact that you are a Christian, having faith in God, and believing in what you have to believe to be a Christian you have some sort of super power that I dont have, so im not able to understand your worldview, and not even able to talk about it. this is specially is clear here:



dont wanted to get really anal with the Greek mythology thing, but you got my point.

ok, so if I don't believe in something, then theres no point in talking about it for me. If I dont believe in the existance of the Loch Ness Monster, theres no point in talking about it, if I don't believe in the Roswell Incident, theres no point talking about it, if I don't believe in fairies theres no point in reading a Disney book to my 5yo brother because fairies are featured on it and I don't believe in them. Please?

Here again:



and please, dont pretend to make a diference between that and believing in a deity, like if you was some sort of chosen one, "feeling" such deity's existance, and the rest, mere spectators, lost without any purpose in life other than fornicating and helping others for the sake of survivability only (because we can't do things for the sake of helping others), seeing you Christian guys living in perfect harmony, because that would end any sort of logical discussion.

believeing in a deity doesnt make you special, or gives you the ability to talk about things that other cant on the same level as you, knowledge does. you are still believing in something that doesnt exist outside your belief, which is based in faith. If it makes you feel better than not believing in any special deity, good for you, but please understand that you are not special/superior to a person that doesn't believe in a certain deity, you are as special as you want to believe you are. believing otherwise is already clouding your vision and arguments.

ps: mind saying if you both guys are virgins? (no offense tho, just to know)

cheers.