Oops. I voted no. But I meant yes. Much better without religion.

TCSoup wrote: You think 911 happened because of what.?

Not just religion though. They hate capitalism and they are just jealous because America is the GOAT.

O-Trap wrote: 3. Science tells us that, somehow, it is instinctive to engage in sex ... such that if a human boy in the wild were to have no social interaction or sexual education, formal or informal, he would still be able to figure out what to do.

I knew that this was true, because I saw it in a movie.



Sorry, just trying to inject some humor.

Carry on.

(I wonder if Strapping Yound Lad has figured out yet that he bit off more than he could chew taking on Otrap)

What I mean by why we have sex IS the instinct part, which you concede, so what are trying to argue here??? Like I said, Everything with us so cerebral, of course an individuals come up with a million different reasons why they might want to have sex or be able to use sex, but the reason people are horny, look at tits, jackoff, etc is because it is our nature to want to fuck someone.....and science gets behind this idea. And even if you want to talk about the why's of sex on an individual level, well, science will get to that too and has begun to develop some ideas but it's not exactly a hot topic.

I'm the one who brought up CS Lewis' little man idea.

Yada yada yada

You admit Christians are wrong about a great many things......

That about covers it.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: What I mean by why we have sex IS the instinct part, which you concede, so what are trying to argue here???

I believe (and correct me if I err) that the rub is that you've listed an explanation as to WHY it is intrinsic to us ... a part of our instincts as it were. I am contending, however, that we cannot scientifically say WHY it is part of our instincts. One can list the benefits (furthering the species, pleasing to the senses, et cetera), but one cannot prove that the benefits are the cause of it being innate. We can say that it is innate, and we can say that those benefits are true, but from a scientific standpoint, we cannot connect them, as there is no evidence by which we may do so.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:Like I said, Everything with us so cerebral, of course an individuals come up with a million different reasons why they might want to have sex or be able to use sex, but the reason people are horny, look at tits, jackoff, etc is because it is our nature to want to fuck someone.....and science gets behind this idea.

Indeed, but the "why" of it being part of our nature is outside the realm of what science can currently know.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:And even if you want to talk about the why's of sex on an individual level, well, science will get to that too and has begun to develop some ideas but it's not exactly a hot topic.

Ultimately, that may or may not be. Science may or may not ever be able to conclude the "whys" on an individual level. For the time being, we must leave that out as currently an impossibility.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:I'm the one who brought up CS Lewis' little man idea.

Indeed. You brought it up as something I would accept, or at least it came across that way. Lewis and I don't quite see eye to eye on the subject of a "conscience" ... as it is traditionally conceived anyway. He sees it as a trustworthy moral guide. I see it as something that is no less corrupt than any other part of a human being, which essentially does away with the need for its existence ... and as such, I chalk it up as something about which we cannot know one way or the other.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:You admit Christians are wrong about a great many things......

That about covers it.

Christians are indeed wrong about a great many things ... because every person alive is wrong about a great many things in my view.

BRF wrote: (I wonder if Strapping Yound Lad has figured out yet that he bit off more than he could chew taking on Otrap)

I appreciate the sentiment, but in all honesty, I don't consider a discussion like this "taking on" anyone. We're two people with two different worldviews who are discussing the differences in those worldviews, and why they are shaped the way they are shaped.

We are all, in some way, seeking veritas ... "truth." Though he and I are both seeking the same thing, we have come to different conclusions as to what it looks like. That's not a bad thing, and it ought not create an instance of antagonism or arrogance between us.

I would contend that a conclusion should never be judged until a reason for it is given, and even that ought to be repeated from person to person. Two people may have the same conclusion. One may have come to such in a very thoughtful way. The other, a very flippant way.

We ought not judge someone's level of intelligence based on their conclusions, but the journey they have taken to get there. We can still disagree on who is right and who is wrong, but we ought to do so without using the conclusion to lessen our view of the other person's intelligence or thoughtfulness.

Rather than quote your entire op-ed, I will just say.............

It came from Wayne County, what do you expect!!