convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many varieties
david ford
Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
Morain, Lloyd and Mary. 1998. _Humanism As the Next Step_
(Amherst, New York: Humanist Press), 145pp, 39, which is at
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-4.html
From this URL:
_Is Humanism Less Complete Than Religions?_
No. Although lacking the rigid, fixed scriptures of an
alleged revelation, the sources of inspiration, written or
otherwise, which humanists use are very wide. Naturalism
draws on all the living poetry and literature that expresses
joy and hope. It cultivates the awareness of beauty, love,
truth, and life. These are dynamic, ever-growing sources
of feeling. Infused with these sources of inspiration,
humanism offers a complete and satisfying philosophy. It
not only frees one from guilt but gives comfort and
provides inspiration. It helps individuals to develop
self-esteem, maintain personal well-being, and face the
concerns and problems of daily living.
Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
having to do with one's own sexual activity:
Edwords, Frederick. 1989. "What Is Humanism?" at
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/whatishtml.html
"Humanism's rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in
relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary
sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic
psychology."
"A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities" Jan/Feb 1976.
_The Humanist_. At
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/sexual-rights.html
The Conclusion of this statement speaks in favor of "guilt-free
sexuality" and "guilt-free, reciprocal pleasure," even if this
"guilt-free sexuality" involves sexual activity by married persons
outside of their marriages with spousal consent, premarital sex,
homosexual sex, and bisexual sexual activity.
The statement pronounces that "No person's sexual behavior should hurt
or disadvantage another." However, the statement also advocates the
extinguishing of pre-born human life as deemed necessary: "Involved
in the right to birth control is the right to voluntary sterilization
and abortion."
The statement says that "Until now our bodies have been in bondage to
church or state, which have dictated how we could express our
sexuality. We have not been permitted to experience the pleasure and
joy of the human body and our sensory nature to their full capacity."
The statement did not mention bestiality or pedophilia or necrophilia.
Perhaps the statement's authors and signers thought some of the
"repressive taboos [that] should be replaced" are better left unsaid.
Richard Crawford
[snip standard ford stuff]
I think the modified subject line says it all.
agray
> Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
Your subject line, and quote-mining suggest that you believe that some
things are "sinful" whether they are harmful or not. I'd venture a guess
that most atheists just don't see the world that way.
If the worst thing you can think to say about secular humanism is that it
frees one from guilt, then what's your purpose in bleating about it to
atheists? In my opinion, guilt is largely unnecessary. I know right from
wrong, and avoid "wrong" because it's wrong -- not because a God or my
mother or some man of the cloth *told* me it's wrong. I'm smart enough to
know the difference.
--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker
Dave Thompson
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com...
Yes, of course theists would object to someone being free of guilt, because
that removes the leash around their necks that allow religions control over
their flock.
You may not think this is a good thing, but I do.
Glenn
"Fear gan dia" <hnsbxh...@xqqnnxsnr.com> wrote in message
news:41547e...@xqqnnxsnr.com...
> Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
(david ford)
> in <dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>:
>
> > The statement did not mention bestiality or pedophilia or
necrophilia.
> > Perhaps the statement's authors and signers thought some of the
> > "repressive taboos [that] should be replaced" are better left
unsaid.
>
> and pasting from is revealing more about his own sick and
> twisted hangups than about secular humanism.
>
> --
> The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
> "President Nixon was almost impeached for a burglary at the
> Democratic Headquarters; President Clinton was impeached for
> having sex with an intern. But President George W. Bush lied
> to the Congress and the nation, instigated an illegitimate
> war that killed thousands of people, invaded a sovereign
> nation, and violated international law. No president has ever
> provided such indisputable grounds for impeachment."
> - Dr. Helen Caldicott, _The New Nuclear Danger_
>
No sick and twisted hangups here, huh.
Rich Mathers
david ford wrote:
BIG SNIP
A troll.
Carl Henderson
--
Carl Henderson
j...@carlhenderson.net
Doc Smartass
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com:
> Subject: convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual
> activity of many varieties
Go fuck yourself.
Hey...that felt pretty good. No guilt.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
The Fundamentalist
== Knows no greater joy than the sound of his own voice.
== Knows no greater terror than the god he creates in his own image.
== Knows no greater evil than an unfettered mind.
== Knows no greater blasphemy than being told "NO."
GlennGlenn
if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties."
When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
GlennGlenn
Dick C
> Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
You know, I really don't give a damned what they say. Being an atheist
means you think for yourself, and do not rely on anyone's authority
as to what you do or do not believe. I don't read books by or about
atheism. I don't care what they have to say on the matter.
Atheism is not a religion, humanism may approach some form of religion
at times, but I don't care. Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because
its' tenets match my beliefs, but I have never joined, and it matters
not one whit what someone else thinks about it.
And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity in
general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
John Wilkins
You have to go to 1967. Sorry...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Double Felix
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> GlennGlenn <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> > I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
> > if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
> > waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> > varieties."
> >
> > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
> >
> > GlennGlenn
>
> You have to go to 1967. Sorry...
Boy, I have fond memories for the Summer of 69.
What year was that summer again?
- Felix
Cheezits
> Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Levy Oates
>Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
>longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
>having to do with one's own sexual activity:
I would feel properly guilty about having sex if only I could actually get some.
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
David Sienkiewicz
No more or less than those shown by one such as you, "major," who
decided that any New Yorkers still a bit jumpy this long after 9/11
are either crazy or lying.
But I see you have returned to us, sheldon. So, tell me, how goes the
war on terror?
What part did you play today?
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
So what?
Envy hurts, eh?
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
sto...@the.net
ford) wrote:
Fixing Ford's screwup:
Convert to Christianity to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties:
rape
gang rape
paedophelia
sodomy
and more
Carol Lee Smith
<<Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because its' tenets match my beliefs, but
I have never joined, and it matters not one whit what someone else thinks
about it. And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity in
general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular. >>
There re far too many secularists, humanists, secular humanists, atheists,
Brights, agnostics, et. al., who "have never joined."
Such a pity.
There is not only comfort in community, but there is much to be gained
from people coming out of the closet to proclaim they are secular and
proud of it.
Just think: if more people did so, some day it might be acceptable for
people of no faith to run for public office and win.
GlennGlenn
Wilkins <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> GlennGlenn <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> > I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
> > if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
> > waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> > varieties."
> >
> > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
> >
> > GlennGlenn
>
> You have to go to 1967. Sorry...
Not according to the origingal poster....
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 -- dipthot...@yahoo.yahoo.com.com
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
Dick C
> Dick.C said:
>
> <<Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because its' tenets match my beliefs,
but
> I have never joined, and it matters not one whit what someone else
thinks
> about it. And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity
in
> general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular. >>
>
> There re far too many secularists, humanists, secular humanists,
atheists,
> Brights, agnostics, et. al., who "have never joined."
>
> Such a pity.
Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
>
> There is not only comfort in community, but there is much to be gained
> from people coming out of the closet to proclaim they are secular and
> proud of it.
Not for me. I do not need the comfort of a community. Nor, I suspect,
do very many atheists. That is one reason we are atheists, and not
theists. Many people attend church, and remain in it, simply for
the community aspects. I suspect that there are far more atheists
in the churches than most people suspect.
>
> Just think: if more people did so, some day it might be acceptable for
> people of no faith to run for public office and win.
The only thing that will make that happen is if people of no faith do
run.
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
>> You have to go to 1967. Sorry...
> Not according to the origingal poster....
As the OP is an idiot, who cares?
Richard Forrest
What makes you think that people of no faith don't run for office now?
The fact that declaring that you are a born-again Christian is a great
vote-winner in the USA means that many politicians claim to be
born-again Christians. Whether or not their actions when in power
support than claim is of course another matter.
RF
Ian Braidwood
> david ford wrote in talk.origins
>
> > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>
> You know, I really don't give a damned what they say. Being an atheist
> means you think for yourself, and do not rely on anyone's authority
> as to what you do or do not believe. I don't read books by or about
> atheism. I don't care what they have to say on the matter.
> Atheism is not a religion, humanism may approach some form of religion
> at times, but I don't care. Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because
> its' tenets match my beliefs, but I have never joined, and it matters
> not one whit what someone else thinks about it.
> And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity in
> general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular.
I find this rather sad.
I understand that you don't want to give up your independence - I'm
hot on that myself - but if you never read anything on Atheism or
Secular Humanism, then you've robbed yourself of any good ideas they
contain.
For instance, you might want to reconsider any patriotism you feel if
you read a text on Humanism.
Myself, I've read books on Secular Humanism, Islam, and Buddhism, and
have books as yet unread on Hinduism, Judaism and the Gnostics, as
well as the other three.
I'm not so stupid that I believe everything I read and can cherry-pick
from any source. That is true independence.
(-: Ian :-)
Cheezits
> Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
What's there to join?
Noelie S. Alito
> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
>
> What's there to join?
The weekly orgy, I guess....
--
Noelie
"Never interrupt Gloriosus in mid-debauch!"
Levy Oates
<noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>"Cheezits" <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
>>
>> What's there to join?
>
>The weekly orgy, I guess....
Oo, er! Where?
Boikat
"Levy Oates" <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3hhdl0la1mvb7vs0c...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:08:22 +0000 (UTC), "Noelie S. Alito"
> <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> >"Cheezits" <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
> >>
> >> What's there to join?
> >
> >The weekly orgy, I guess....
>
> Oo, er! Where?
The Hot Tub patio at the Panda's Thumb. Well, that depends on if anyone
can find the key to the pad lock.
Boikat
--
<42><
Realityis
<snip>
> "No person's sexual behavior should hurt
> or disadvantage another."
The fact that you read the above and then wrote (or quoted):
> The statement did not mention bestiality or pedophilia or necrophilia.
> Perhaps the statement's authors and signers thought some of the
> "repressive taboos [that] should be replaced" are better left unsaid.
Demonstrates to me that your not very intelligent.
Realityis
"All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with
different holidays." ~Cathy Ladman
allan m
<snip sermon>
guilt is an evolved mechanism by which a social species which
(largely) benefits from monogamy actually tries to achieve it. As
such, I can assure you, an atheist feels it, despite lacking fear of
fire-and-brimstone retribution. Buggering priests aren't stopped by
it, despite having fear of fire-and-brimstone retribution. Funny old
world.
John Wilkins
Yeah. Some of them poor sods have been at it for over five years now. We
really ought to let them out.
>
> Boikat
> --
> <42><
John Wilkins
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote...
>
> <snip sermon>
>
> guilt is an evolved mechanism by which a social species which
> (largely) benefits from monogamy actually tries to achieve it. As
> such, I can assure you, an atheist feels it, despite lacking fear of
> fire-and-brimstone retribution. Buggering priests aren't stopped by
> it, despite having fear of fire-and-brimstone retribution. Funny old
> world.
Guilt has little, if anything, to do with sex as such. It is more an
evolved emotion that plays a role in dominance hierarchies, in
reciprocal altruism, and in trade. Sexual guilt is a cultural, not a
biological, determinant. One thing that may be biological, though, WRT
sex, is the cheating on a mate arrangement (no matter what that is,
culturally), although so far as I can see, the evidence is that this
causes damned little guilt on the part of either sex in fact.
Dick C
> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns956EBE8A211A4...@216.196.97.136>...
>> david ford wrote in talk.origins
>>
>> > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
>> > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>>
>> You know, I really don't give a damned what they say. Being an atheist
>> means you think for yourself, and do not rely on anyone's authority
>> as to what you do or do not believe. I don't read books by or about
>> atheism. I don't care what they have to say on the matter.
>> Atheism is not a religion, humanism may approach some form of religion
>> at times, but I don't care. Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because
>> its' tenets match my beliefs, but I have never joined, and it matters
>> not one whit what someone else thinks about it.
>> And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity in
>> general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular.
>
>
> I find this rather sad.
>
> I understand that you don't want to give up your independence - I'm
> hot on that myself - but if you never read anything on Atheism or
> Secular Humanism, then you've robbed yourself of any good ideas they
> contain.
Strangely enough, I don't feel a great need to justify my decisions
by what others think. Nor am I interested in all sorts of philosophical
discussions. That type of thing bores me stiff.
>
> For instance, you might want to reconsider any patriotism you feel if
> you read a text on Humanism.
Or not. I realize that man is a territorial pack animal. And reading
about how that is wrong is not going to change my heritage. We tend
to protect and promote our families. If we don't have a strong family
connection we will form one with others like us (gangs for instance).
we also tend to protect our territories, our homes, our countries.
And I realize that there is often a strong religious element in
patriotism for some people, but that does not change the fact that
I am patriotic myself.
>
> Myself, I've read books on Secular Humanism, Islam, and Buddhism, and
> have books as yet unread on Hinduism, Judaism and the Gnostics, as
> well as the other three.
>
> I'm not so stupid that I believe everything I read and can cherry-pick
> from any source. That is true independence.
Or the need to immerse myself in all sorts of stuff that I do not
find a use for.
Boikat
"John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gkrft9.1bt650luyqm2rN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Levy Oates" <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3hhdl0la1mvb7vs0c...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:08:22 +0000 (UTC), "Noelie S. Alito"
> > > <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Cheezits" <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> > Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
> > > >>
> > > >> What's there to join?
> > > >
> > > >The weekly orgy, I guess....
> > >
> > > Oo, er! Where?
> >
> > The Hot Tub patio at the Panda's Thumb. Well, that depends on if
anyone
> > can find the key to the pad lock.
>
> Yeah. Some of them poor sods have been at it for over five years now. We
> really ought to let them out.
Or at least change the water and replace the filters. :P
Boikat
--
<42><
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>
> Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between consenting" children and their parents?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between" people and animals?
> Morain, Lloyd and Mary. 1998. _Humanism As the Next Step_
> (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press), 145pp, 39, which is at
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-4.html
> From this URL:
> _Is Humanism Less Complete Than Religions?_
> No. Although lacking the rigid, fixed scriptures of an
> alleged revelation, the sources of inspiration, written or
> otherwise, which humanists use are very wide. Naturalism
> draws on all the living poetry and literature that expresses
> joy and hope. It cultivates the awareness of beauty, love,
> truth, and life. These are dynamic, ever-growing sources
> of feeling. Infused with these sources of inspiration,
> humanism offers a complete and satisfying philosophy. It
> not only frees one from guilt but gives comfort and
> provides inspiration. It helps individuals to develop
> self-esteem, maintain personal well-being, and face the
> concerns and problems of daily living.
>
> Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
> longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
> having to do with one's own sexual activity:
>
> Edwords, Frederick. 1989. "What Is Humanism?" at
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/whatishtml.html
> "Humanism's rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in
> relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary
> sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic
> psychology."
>
> "A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities" Jan/Feb 1976.
> _The Humanist_. At
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/sexual-rights.html
> The Conclusion of this statement speaks in favor of "guilt-free
> sexuality" and "guilt-free, reciprocal pleasure," even if this
> "guilt-free sexuality" involves sexual activity by married persons
> outside of their marriages with spousal consent, premarital sex,
> homosexual sex, and bisexual sexual activity.
>
> The statement pronounces that "No person's sexual behavior should hurt
> or disadvantage another." However, the statement also advocates the
> extinguishing of pre-born human life as deemed necessary: "Involved
> in the right to birth control is the right to voluntary sterilization
> and abortion."
>
> The statement says that "Until now our bodies have been in bondage to
> church or state, which have dictated how we could express our
> sexuality. We have not been permitted to experience the pleasure and
> joy of the human body and our sensory nature to their full capacity."
Cheezits
> Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>> > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
>> > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>>
>> Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes
>> on between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
No. What part of "consenting adults" don't you understand?
John McKendry
> Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>> > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
>> > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>>
>> Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> between consenting" children and their parents?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> between" people and animals?
>
The rule that "No person's sexual behavior should hurt or disadvantage
another" covers those practices: children and animals are not autonomous
moral agents and cannot give meaningful consent to such acts. The moral
principle that one's behavior should not hurt or disadvantage another
is one that is shared by humanists and Christians. Jesus did not, after
all, say "love your neighbor as yourself, or else God will pound the
crap out of you", but simply "love your neighbor as yourself". Mature
Christians, like mature humanists, understand that empathy, not fear
of punishment, is the foundation of true morality, and that we should
behave morally not because we fear punishment, but simply because that's
what "should" means.
Your continued refusal to acknowledge that "secular humanists"
recognize the same moral principles that you do, your insistence on
demonizing them and imputing to them beliefs and behaviors they do
not hold or condone, says nothing about the morality of
secular humanism, but demonstrates clearly that you yourself have not
yet attained the moral maturity of the average 13-year-old.
In other words, grow up, David. Show us some evidence that you know
how to apply your vaunted "Christian" moral standards to your own
behavior, and maybe then we will take seriously your judgments about
the behavior of others.
<snip>
John
Richard Smol
<- snippage ->
> Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
> longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
> having to do with one's own sexual activity
And as long as you don't do any harm to others, there is no reason
to feel guilty. So your point is?
RS
Bobby D. Bryant
Don't you know that God's primary mission is regulating sexual behavior,
and guilt is the best tool he can come up with for accomplishing it?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
VoiceOfReason
> allan m <allang...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote...
> >
> > <snip sermon>
> >
> > guilt is an evolved mechanism by which a social species which
> > (largely) benefits from monogamy actually tries to achieve it. As
> > such, I can assure you, an atheist feels it, despite lacking fear of
> > fire-and-brimstone retribution. Buggering priests aren't stopped by
> > it, despite having fear of fire-and-brimstone retribution. Funny old
> > world.
>
> Guilt has little, if anything, to do with sex as such. It is more an
> evolved emotion that plays a role in dominance hierarchies, in
> reciprocal altruism, and in trade. Sexual guilt is a cultural, not a
> biological, determinant. One thing that may be biological, though, WRT
> sex, is the cheating on a mate arrangement (no matter what that is,
> culturally), although so far as I can see, the evidence is that this
> causes damned little guilt on the part of either sex in fact.
Interesting observation I read once -
A man's primary fantasy is to bed as many women as possible. A
woman's primary fantasy is "Better Homes and Gardens." One of the
least appreciated aspects of our culture is that a man is expected to
give up his primary fantasy in order to fulfill a woman's primary
fantasy.
allan m
>
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote...
> >
> > <snip sermon>
> >
> > guilt is an evolved mechanism by which a social species which
> > (largely) benefits from monogamy actually tries to achieve it. As
> > such, I can assure you, an atheist feels it, despite lacking fear of
> > fire-and-brimstone retribution. Buggering priests aren't stopped by
> > it, despite having fear of fire-and-brimstone retribution. Funny old
> > world.
>
> Guilt has little, if anything, to do with sex as such. It is more an
> evolved emotion that plays a role in dominance hierarchies, in
> reciprocal altruism, and in trade. Sexual guilt is a cultural, not a
> biological, determinant. One thing that may be biological, though, WRT
> sex, is the cheating on a mate arrangement
<snip>
This was what I meant ("monogamy mechanism"). Guilt over actually
having/enjoying sex is not something to which I would subscribe, but
evolution works via our emotions to achieve its behavioural 'aims' -
positively through pleasure and negatively through adverse emotions eg
jealousy and cheater's guilt. These same emotions have a role in other
behaviours too, and don't lead to absolutes, but tendencies.
anne marie hovgaard
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> >
> > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
responded to, as 10-year-olds are not adults)
Are you trying to tell me I ought to feel guilty over what I, at 10,
did with other 10 year olds? Even if everyone agreed & had fun & noone
got hurt?
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> > >
> > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
> >
> > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>
> [several repetitions deleted]
>
> No. What part of "consenting adults" don't
> you understand?
Where in the "A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities" at
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/sexual-rights.html
do you see anything about [C]"consenting adults"?
I did see the statement say that, "Until now our bodies have been in
bondage to church or state, which have dictated how we could express
our sexuality. We have not been permitted to experience the pleasure
and joy of the human body and our sensory nature to their full
capacity."
Material restored. I leave it to lurkers to decide if it had
[C]"several repetitions" of the same question.
> > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
> >
> > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > on between consenting" children and their parents?
> >
> > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
david ford
I have no point.
If a member of the medical profession performs abortions on innocent
pre-born human life without that human life's consent, does that
member of the medical profession [RS]"do any harm to others"?
If my sexual activity spreads sexually-transmitted diseases, do I
[RS]"do any harm to others"?
If someone has sex with 20 people within a room within 2 hours, does
that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
If I lie/ tell falsehoods to help obtain voluntary sex from someone,
do I [RS]"do any harm to others"?
If someone "P" Performs sex on people who Never Learn ("NL") that that
sex occurred (perhaps through the administration of drugs or
anesthesia), did "P" [RS]"do any harm to others"?
If someone has sex with dead human bodies and with animals, does that
someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
OP:
convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Von Smith
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> >
> > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" children and their parents?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and animals?
>
No, hence the term "consenting adults". Let us know if there is
anything else we can help you with.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
sto...@the.net
<hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>Dick.C said:
>
><<Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because its' tenets match my beliefs, but
>I have never joined, and it matters not one whit what someone else thinks
>about it. And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity in
>general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular. >>
>
>There re far too many secularists, humanists, secular humanists, atheists,
>Brights, agnostics, et. al., who "have never joined."
>
>Such a pity.
>
>There is not only comfort in community, but there is much to be gained
>from people coming out of the closet to proclaim they are secular and
>proud of it.
>
>Just think: if more people did so, some day it might be acceptable for
>people of no faith to run for public office and win.
/sputter (gasp)
But that would be injecting ethics into the mix.
Richard Crawford
> "Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-IJ%4d.320$q26....@news.uswest.net>...
>
>>"Fear gan dia" <hnsbxh...@xqqnnxsnr.com> wrote in message
>>news:41547e...@xqqnnxsnr.com...
>>
>>>Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
>>
>> (david ford)
>>
>>>in <dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The statement did not mention bestiality or pedophilia or
>>
>> necrophilia.
>>
>>>> Perhaps the statement's authors and signers thought some of the
>>>>"repressive taboos [that] should be replaced" are better left
>>
>> unsaid.
>>
>>>and pasting from is revealing more about his own sick and
>>>twisted hangups than about secular humanism.
>>>
>>>--
>>>The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
>>>"President Nixon was almost impeached for a burglary at the
>>>Democratic Headquarters; President Clinton was impeached for
>>>having sex with an intern. But President George W. Bush lied
>>>to the Congress and the nation, instigated an illegitimate
>>>war that killed thousands of people, invaded a sovereign
>>>nation, and violated international law. No president has ever
>>>provided such indisputable grounds for impeachment."
>>> - Dr. Helen Caldicott, _The New Nuclear Danger_
>>>
>>
>>No sick and twisted hangups here, huh.
>>
>>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2003/000012.html
>
>
> No more or less than those shown by one such as you, "major," who
> decided that any New Yorkers still a bit jumpy this long after 9/11
> are either crazy or lying.
>
> But I see you have returned to us, sheldon. So, tell me, how goes the
> war on terror?
>
> What part did you play today?
>
Ooooh, Glenn's still around, eh? I'm almost sad that I killfiled him
for calling me a Nazi sympathizer.
Actually, no. His pathetic attempts at argumentation and logic (usually
consisting of, "You don't agree with me so you're a moron" or "You agree
with me so you're a moron") are pretty funny to watch, but it is pretty
instructive to see how other people are able to provide counterexamples
from reality.
Ian Braidwood
> Ian Braidwood wrote in talk.origins
>
> > Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns956EBE8A211A4...@216.196.97.136>...
> >> david ford wrote in talk.origins
> >>
> >> > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> >> > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> >>
> >> You know, I really don't give a damned what they say. Being an atheist
> >> means you think for yourself, and do not rely on anyone's authority
> >> as to what you do or do not believe. I don't read books by or about
> >> atheism. I don't care what they have to say on the matter.
> >> Atheism is not a religion, humanism may approach some form of religion
> >> at times, but I don't care. Am I a secular humanist? Yes, because
> >> its' tenets match my beliefs, but I have never joined, and it matters
> >> not one whit what someone else thinks about it.
> >> And you will note, that that is entirely unlike Christianity in
> >> general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular.
> >
> >
> > I find this rather sad.
> >
> > I understand that you don't want to give up your independence - I'm
> > hot on that myself - but if you never read anything on Atheism or
> > Secular Humanism, then you've robbed yourself of any good ideas they
> > contain.
>
> Strangely enough, I don't feel a great need to justify my decisions
> by what others think. Nor am I interested in all sorts of philosophical
> discussions. That type of thing bores me stiff.
I'm not suggesting you have to justify your decisions; merely that an
imformed decision is usually the better one.
> > For instance, you might want to reconsider any patriotism you feel if
> > you read a text on Humanism.
>
> Or not. I realize that man is a territorial pack animal. And reading
> about how that is wrong is not going to change my heritage. We tend
> to protect and promote our families. If we don't have a strong family
> connection we will form one with others like us (gangs for instance).
> we also tend to protect our territories, our homes, our countries.
> And I realize that there is often a strong religious element in
> patriotism for some people, but that does not change the fact that
> I am patriotic myself.
Very fatalistic, but really you don't have to be defensive, I'm not
trying to run your life, rather the opposite.
The point about patriotism isn't that it is wrong in some sort of
moral sense, but that it is just plain foolish. You had no choice over
where you were born, so why take pride in any being a memember of a
particular population; as if you had something to do with its
achievements?
> > Myself, I've read books on Secular Humanism, Islam, and Buddhism, and
> > have books as yet unread on Hinduism, Judaism and the Gnostics, as
> > well as the other three.
> >
> > I'm not so stupid that I believe everything I read and can cherry-pick
> > from any source. That is true independence.
>
> Or the need to immerse myself in all sorts of stuff that I do not
> find a use for.
Well, you're never going to know whether any of it is useful to you,
unless you read it; any more than you're going to know what an
unfamiliar meal is like without tasting it.
Both my studies of Secular Humanism and Buddhism _have_ been useful to
me, as have Plato's dialogues - I wouldn't recommend them otherwise.
I'm not talking some etherial useful either, but a very tangible
benefit in terms of being happier and more respected by other people.
Life is better for me, because I simply don't make many of the common
mistakes most people make. I'm even richer than ever before.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
Richard Smol
This god-fella has *way* too much time on his hands.
RS
david ford
I'm not trying to tell you that you ought to feel guilty over any sort
of action, done this year or when you were 10.
BTW, what are your answers to these questions?:
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between consenting" children and their parents?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between" people and animals?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between" people and comatose humans?
Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
on between" people and dead human bodies?
Von Smith
> Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95711D31EFFDc...@129.250.170.86>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
> > > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> > > >
> > > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > > > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
> > >
> > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
> >
> > [several repetitions deleted]
> >
> > No. What part of "consenting adults" don't
> > you understand?
>
> Where in the "A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities" at
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/sexual-rights.html
> do you see anything about [C]"consenting adults"?
>
I don't know about those exact words, but here is a relevant passage
you seem to have ignored:
"Laws can and do protect the young from exploitation and people of any
age from abuse. Beyond that, forms of sexual expression should not be
a matter of legal regulation. Mature individuals should be able choose
their partners and the kinds of sexual expression suited to them."
Throughout the document, sexual freedom is predicated upon autonomy,
maturity and responsibility, not traits one typically associates with
8-year-olds, especially in their dealings with adults. The document
does mention child sexuality, though:
"Childhood sexuality is expressed through genital awareness and
exploration. This involves self-touching, caressing parts of the body,
including the sexual organs. These are learning experiences that help
the individual understand his or her body and incorporate sexuality as
an integral part of his or her personality. Masturbation is a viable
mode of satisfaction for many individuals, young and old, and should
be fully accepted."
I don't think most humanists would read this document as extending to
the hypotheticals you ask about below.
> I did see the statement say that, "Until now our bodies have been in
> bondage to church or state, which have dictated how we could express
> our sexuality. We have not been permitted to experience the pleasure
> and joy of the human body and our sensory nature to their full
> capacity."
And your problem with this is what, exactly?
>
> Material restored. I leave it to lurkers to decide if it had
> [C]"several repetitions" of the same question.
>
> > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
> > >
> > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > on between consenting" children and their parents?
> > >
> > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > on between" people and animals?
> > >
Von Smith
AC
> amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
>>>
>>>>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
>>>>>Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>>>>
>>>>Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>>>>between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>>>
>>>Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
>>>on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>>
>>(Disregarding the fact that you obviously didn't read the post you
>>responded to, as 10-year-olds are not adults)
>>Are you trying to tell me I ought to feel guilty over what I, at 10,
>>did with other 10 year olds? Even if everyone agreed & had fun & noone
>>got hurt?
>
>
> I'm not trying to tell you that you ought to feel guilty over any sort
> of action, done this year or when you were 10.
>
> BTW, what are your answers to these questions?:
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
The very notion of consent implies individuals of sufficient maturity to
be able to understand what it is they're giving. Ten year olds, at
least in our culture, are not considered of an age to do so. Mind you,
it's a pretty rare ten year old who hasn't played doctor, and it is a
rather normal, mundane part of growing up.
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
Again, consent implies someone mature enough to understand. A pedophile
is taking advantage of an individual that cannot. BTW, your attempt to
slur secular humanism is noted. Perhaps you'd like to give a tally
secular humanist pedophiles and, say, Christian pedophiles.
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" children and their parents?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and animals?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and comatose humans?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and dead human bodies?
Can Christianity explain why you are attempting slur secular humanism in
this way? Is this what your god commands, DAvid? Is this the sort of
religion you practice? I'm certainly glad I'm not a member of your
faith, as I'd hate to have to share the same church with a person so
pathetic, so fear-mongering and so fundementally dishonest that they
carry on like this. Does your family know you behave like this on
Usenet, DAvid?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a whitish
fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
Richard Smol
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> > <- snippage ->
> >
> > > Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
> > > longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
> > > having to do with one's own sexual activity
> >
> > And as long as you don't do any harm to others, there is no reason
> > to feel guilty. So your point is?
>
> I have no point.
>
> If a member of the medical profession performs abortions on innocent
> pre-born human life without that human life's consent, does that
> member of the medical profession [RS]"do any harm to others"?
So you want to start a rescue service for all those millions of
fetuses that get aborted naturally every year?
Anyway, you're muddying the waters. Abortion is a totally different
subject. There *is* borth control, you know.
> If my sexual activity spreads sexually-transmitted diseases, do I
> [RS]"do any harm to others"?
Yes. Then again, one can use protection.
> If someone has sex with 20 people within a room within 2 hours, does
> that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
No.
> If I lie/ tell falsehoods to help obtain voluntary sex from someone,
> do I [RS]"do any harm to others"?
This doesn't have anything to do with sex per se. Lying to
steal money is bad too, see.
> If someone "P" Performs sex on people who Never Learn ("NL") that that
> sex occurred (perhaps through the administration of drugs or
> anesthesia), did "P" [RS]"do any harm to others"?
Yes, because sex should be by consent of all involved.
> If someone has sex with dead human bodies and with animals, does that
> someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
Not to the bodies, but very likely to the animals.
So the bottom line is: there is nothing the matter, as long as
there is consent from all parties involved. That you have problems
with certain sexual activities is *your* issue, not anyone else's
RS
*Hemidactylus*
> GlennGlenn <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> > I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
> > if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
> > waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> > varieties."
> >
> > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
> >
> > GlennGlenn
>
> You have to go to 1967. Sorry...
>
onan the Barbarian say: "Guiltless sexual pleasure such a lonely
activity these days."
[running for cover]
Bobby D. Bryant
I wonder whether David's god ever feels guilty about any of this. Surely
an omni*ent creator could have arranged things so that the equipment only
works in approved contexts. Why did he rely on something so culturally
variable and generally ineffective as guilt instead? Or for that matter,
why did he rely on biology for bringing new souls into the world to begin
with?
Can David's theology free his god from well merited guilt over what goes
on in the universe?
Will all the abused children absolve him on judgement day?
Bobby D. Bryant
> I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
> if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
> waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> varieties."
>
> When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
Sorry; all that stuff is reserved for _sexular_ humanists.
Wakboth
> amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.04092...@posting.google.com>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
> > > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> > > >
> > > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > > > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
> > >
> > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
> >
> > (Disregarding the fact that you obviously didn't read the post you
> > responded to, as 10-year-olds are not adults)
> > Are you trying to tell me I ought to feel guilty over what I, at 10,
> > did with other 10 year olds? Even if everyone agreed & had fun & noone
> > got hurt?
>
> I'm not trying to tell you that you ought to feel guilty over any sort
> of action, done this year or when you were 10.
>
> BTW, what are your answers to these questions?:
You really cannot read, can you? Here's a hint: "consenting adult"
does not mean "comatose, or an animal, or an eight-year old kid."
You are an idiot and/or dishonest.
-- Wakboth
John Vreeland
"To crush your enemies! To have them driven before you and hear the
lamentation of the women."
Wasn't Onan killed by God for failing to impregnate his dead brother's
wife? Is this a guide for proper etiquette? Should you wait until
after the funeral, or until she stops lamenting? I would not want to
offend God.
Jack V
Nantko Schanssema
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
>
>> "Levy Oates" <levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3hhdl0la1mvb7vs0c...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:08:22 +0000 (UTC), "Noelie S. Alito"
>> > <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >"Cheezits" <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >> > Why, I am not a joiner. I see no advantage to joining.
>> > >>
>> > >> What's there to join?
>> > >
>> > >The weekly orgy, I guess....
>> >
>> > Oo, er! Where?
>>
>> The Hot Tub patio at the Panda's Thumb. Well, that depends on if anyone
>> can find the key to the pad lock.
>
>Yeah. Some of them poor sods have been at it for over five years now. We
>really ought to let them out.
IIRC it was the U of E's Department of Applied Speciation that started
that experiment. Of course, all department members agreed to
participate, so it's not clear exactly when they should be let out.
Applied Speciation's office space is now used by Computing Services.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
Lilith
Even we sexular humanists have it bad. It used to be that we could
easily go door-to-door with copies of the Kama Sutra and win lots of
converts over to sexularism. Now we're trying to put a sexular
government in place, but so far no luck. None of the US politicians
since Clinton are sexular enough to satisfy us.
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.04092...@posting.google.com>...
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
> > > > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > > > > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
> > > >
> > > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > > on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
> > >
> > > (Disregarding the fact that you obviously didn't read the post you
> > > responded to, as 10-year-olds are not adults)
> > > Are you trying to tell me I ought to feel guilty over what I, at 10,
> > > did with other 10 year olds? Even if everyone agreed & had fun & noone
> > > got hurt?
> >
> > I'm not trying to tell you that you ought to feel guilty over any sort
> > of action, done this year or when you were 10.
> >
> > BTW, what are your answers to these questions?:
>
> You really cannot read, can you? Here's a hint: "consenting adult"
> does not mean "comatose, or an animal, or an eight-year old kid."
>
> You are an idiot and/or dishonest.
....or he's David Ford. But I repeat myself.
-- Kizhe
Double Felix
lil...@umich.edu (Lilith) wrote:
No single president could satisfy *you* guys!
- Felix
AC
David is trying to demonize secular humanism. He can hardly do that if he
concedes such a major point, so, as David always does, he will simply ignore
any inconvenient facts and continue making the same assertion. David's
recent attacks on secular humanism are excellent examples of how he
operates, posting quotes he hasn't read and continuing to make the same
false claims even after being corrected. I don't think he's stupid, so my
feeling is that he is simply being dishonest.
anne marie hovgaard
> amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.04092...@posting.google.com>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
> > > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
> > > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
> > > >
> > > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
> > > > between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
> > >
> > > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> > > on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
> >
> > (Disregarding the fact that you obviously didn't read the post you
> > responded to, as 10-year-olds are not adults)
> > Are you trying to tell me I ought to feel guilty over what I, at 10,
> > did with other 10 year olds? Even if everyone agreed & had fun & noone
> > got hurt?
>
> I'm not trying to tell you that you ought to feel guilty over any sort
> of action, done this year or when you were 10.
>
> BTW, what are your answers to these questions?:
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
to keep repeating your silly questions.
1. 10-year-olds are not adults.
2. 10-year-olds do not have the capacity to give legally binding
consent.
This means that there are TWO very good reasons why 10-year-old
children are not included in the category "consenting adults": They
cannot consent and they are not adults.
3. If you disregard such minor details as the fact that, for the
reasons explained above, your question was totally irrelevant to the
previous poster's statement about "consenting adults", then, yes,
secular humanism might well help free a person from pointless guilt
over something that went on between 10-year-old children who all
"consented" in the sense that none of them forced or manipulated the
others and everyone did whatever it was they did simply because they
thought it was fun.
anne marie hovgaard
Interesting use of the word "observation" ... I'm afraid this person
would be slightly shocked if they could read women's minds and see
what we _actually_ fantasize about ;)
Glenn
D'oh! One letter off....
GlennGlenn
Rich Mathers
Lilith wrote:
Hmmm! A sexular identity crisis?
Bobby D. Bryant
> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) wrote in message
> news:<78e3ae70.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Interesting observation I read once -
>>
>> A man's primary fantasy is to bed as many women as possible. A woman's
>> primary fantasy is "Better Homes and Gardens." One of the least
>> appreciated aspects of our culture is that a man is expected to give up
>> his primary fantasy in order to fulfill a woman's primary fantasy.
>
> Interesting use of the word "observation" ... I'm afraid this person
> would be slightly shocked if they could read women's minds and see what
> we _actually_ fantasize about ;)
Better Homes and Hunkier Gardners?
Dick C
> Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9570BDC3774B2...@216.196.97.136>...
>> Ian Braidwood wrote in talk.origins
>> Strangely enough, I don't feel a great need to justify my decisions
>> by what others think. Nor am I interested in all sorts of philosophical
>> discussions. That type of thing bores me stiff.
>
> I'm not suggesting you have to justify your decisions; merely that an
> imformed decision is usually the better one.
While that may be, but I am not sure what decision you are talking
about.
>
>> > For instance, you might want to reconsider any patriotism you feel if
>> > you read a text on Humanism.
>>
>> Or not. I realize that man is a territorial pack animal. And reading
>> about how that is wrong is not going to change my heritage. We tend
>> to protect and promote our families. If we don't have a strong family
>> connection we will form one with others like us (gangs for instance).
>> we also tend to protect our territories, our homes, our countries.
>> And I realize that there is often a strong religious element in
>> patriotism for some people, but that does not change the fact that
>> I am patriotic myself.
>
> Very fatalistic, but really you don't have to be defensive, I'm not
> trying to run your life, rather the opposite.
I am not being fatalistic. And I still fail to see any need to read
those texts.
>
> The point about patriotism isn't that it is wrong in some sort of
> moral sense, but that it is just plain foolish. You had no choice over
> where you were born, so why take pride in any being a memember of a
> particular population; as if you had something to do with its
> achievements?
I had no choice over where I was born, but I do have a choice over
where to live, and I also know why we take pride in the accomplishments
of others. As I said, we are territorial pack animals.
>
>> > Myself, I've read books on Secular Humanism, Islam, and Buddhism, and
>> > have books as yet unread on Hinduism, Judaism and the Gnostics, as
>> > well as the other three.
>> >
>> > I'm not so stupid that I believe everything I read and can
>> > cherry-pick from any source. That is true independence.
>>
>> Or the need to immerse myself in all sorts of stuff that I do not
>> find a use for.
>
> Well, you're never going to know whether any of it is useful to you,
> unless you read it; any more than you're going to know what an
> unfamiliar meal is like without tasting it.
On the other hand, I find that kind of material very boring and
what I have read has never been useful. Why keep going back to
the same buffet when everything you have tried is of no interest?
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Az_
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between consenting" children and their parents?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and animals?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and comatose humans?
>
> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
> on between" people and dead human bodies?
Ok, lets try this real slow.
Humans have an extended length of time that the parents raise the
children. This is because the advances in our brains that gave us
advantages are based on the notion that adaptive styles of behaviour
offer a better means of survival for the species. That is we learn
more about how to survive than we operate by instinct.
With this advance the way was paved for civilization to rise. By
being able to store more instructions we were able to find
increasingly complex ways of interacting with each other. But this
increase in learning meant that our offspring require a greater length
of time to learn all the rules of our complex society. Thus the age
at which we consider a child to be an adult with enough understanding
of our society has continued to rise as the society has become more
complex.
The word consent specifically refers to someone who is aware of the
ramificiations of their actions and voluntarily gives the permission.
As a child has not yet learned enough about our society to make an
informed descision and understand its ramifications they cannot give
consent.
Animals are unable to store the same capacity of social instructions
as our brains do. Thus they never enter into a position of being able
to give consent.
As to what goes on with a dead body. Not only does this present a
severe health risk but it also shows a complete lack of regard for
those that may associate lingering emotions regarding the departed.
Thus it raises enough of an issue that it is warranted that it remain
a taboo within our society.
Bobby D. Bryant
Yes, but that one letter puts them way down the hall, past the Sedentary,
Segmented, Selective, Self-Selective, Semiotic, Senescent, Septic,
Sequential, Sequesterd, Serial, Sessile, SETI, and Severe Humanists.
Kermit
> Richard Smol <jazzcat...@dds.nl> wrote in message news:<TLO5d.136148$C7.8...@amsnews05.chello.com>...
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> > <- snippage ->
> >
> > > Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
> > > longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
> > > having to do with one's own sexual activity
> >
> > And as long as you don't do any harm to others, there is no reason
> > to feel guilty. So your point is?
>
> I have no point.
'K.
>
> If a member of the medical profession performs abortions on innocent
> pre-born human life without that human life's consent, does that
> member of the medical profession [RS]"do any harm to others"?
If a sexually prudish president refuses to fund programs which
advocate abstention *and the use of condoms, even tho they have been
shown to reduce teen sex, is he at all responsible for the increase in
teen pregnancies, suicides, and abortions?
>
> If my sexual activity spreads sexually-transmitted diseases, do I
> [RS]"do any harm to others"?
If refraining from providing condoms to teens and poor people leads to
an increase in AIDS, can a Christian still feel righteous? Was that
the point of this behavior?
>
> If someone has sex with 20 people within a room within 2 hours, does
> that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
Are they adults? Are they consenting?
How about if a priest sodmizes a young boy? Is the boy harmed if the
priest is a man of God? If the priest is really, really sorry, and
thinks God forgives him, is he free from guilt? Does he no longer have
a responsibility to the child?
>
> If I lie/ tell falsehoods to help obtain voluntary sex from someone,
> do I [RS]"do any harm to others"?
I dunno. If you lie to try to get converts to your religion, does that
harm others? If you succeed, what does the new convert learn?
>
> If someone "P" Performs sex on people who Never Learn ("NL") that that
> sex occurred (perhaps through the administration of drugs or
> anesthesia), did "P" [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
I don't know anyone who has done that. Do you?
Most humanists would say that "consenting adults" is the key to
morality. Perhaps you could talk to a theist or atheist who isn't a
humanist and ask them for their take on this.
Should we be appalled that you don't seem to know this, or should we
be appalled to infer that you are pretending we don't understand
this? Which would make you more dangerous to children and pets?
> If someone has sex with dead human bodies and with animals, does that
> someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
I dunno. Are they consenting adults? If they are not, is there anybody
else harmed by this... say, a relative of the dead? In philosphical
circles, I can't say that necrophilia is a common subject for ethical
debates. Is it in Christian circles, now?
> OP:
> convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> varieties
But, not all varieties. For a list of all possible perversions, ask
your nearest fundamentalist what he thinks atheists do in their spare
time. They've obviously put a lot of thought into it.
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Kermit
Richard Crawford
Not to mention the Sexendery, Sexmented, Sexective, Sex-Sexective,
Sexiotic, Sexescent, Sextic, Sexuential, Sexestered, Sexial, Sexxile,
XETI, and Sexere Humaxists.
Eris
If in fact the opposite sex has the same sex drive that we have what
is the problem?
Are there any charitable organizations out there where I can pick up
some donated sex?
Actually I can get all of the sex I want, it is escaping afterwards
that is the tricky part.
Greg G
We have a Bush and a Dick in the White House now. There are two Johns
running against them, if you would prefer some bathroom humor.
--
Greg G.
For water continually dropping will wear hard rocks hollow.
--Plutarch, 46(?)-120(?) A. D. _Of the Training of Children_
John Wilkins
> lil...@umich.edu (Lilith) wrote...
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote...
> > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:28:10 +0000, GlennGlenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
> > > > if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
> > > > waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> > > > varieties."
> > > >
> > > > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
> > >
> > > Sorry; all that stuff is reserved for _sexular_ humanists.
> >
> > Even we sexular humanists have it bad. It used to be that we could
> > easily go door-to-door with copies of the Kama Sutra and win lots of
> > converts over to sexularism. Now we're trying to put a sexular
> > government in place, but so far no luck. None of the US politicians
> > since Clinton are sexular enough to satisfy us.
>
> We have a Bush and a Dick in the White House now. There are two Johns
> running against them, if you would prefer some bathroom humor.
Let me know when there's a Beaver* running...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
* The Australian equivalent is "State of Tasmania", which doesn't work
well in this case.
Walter Bushell
Do tell.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
William Morse
news:705782b9.04092...@posting.google.com:
The observation seems to be what a man would want a woman's primary
fantasy to be (yes there are differences between men and women in their
discrimination in sexual partners, but "Better Homes and Gardens"?
Sheesh!)
And I have to say that looking at current evidence including clothing and
behavior, it seems that at present human culture is more in line with
males as a limiting resource for parental investment (at least in middle
and upper classes), so it is the females that would be expected to be
more promiscuous. I will immediately note that trying to predict human
behavior from principles based on non-cultural animals is always a
stretch.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Cheezits
> Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns95711D31EFFDc...@129.250.170.86>...
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>> news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
>> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>> > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
>> > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>> > >
>> > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what
>> > > goes on between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>> >
>> > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what
>> > goes on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>>
>> [several repetitions deleted]
>>
>> No. What part of "consenting adults" don't
>> you understand?
>
> Where in the "A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities" at
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/sexual-rights.html
> do you see anything about [C]"consenting adults"?
[wasted bandwidth deleted]
I didn't say I was quoting the article. However, several people have gone
to the trouble to explain to you why that qualifier is important so I won't
repeat it.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Louann Miller
(Greg G) wrote:
>> converts over to sexularism. Now we're trying to put a sexular
>> government in place, but so far no luck. None of the US politicians
>> since Clinton are sexular enough to satisfy us.
>
>We have a Bush and a Dick in the White House now. There are two Johns
>running against them, if you would prefer some bathroom humor.
Not long ago I tried to work out the last presidential election with
two good candidates running against each other. Most recent I could
come up with was Eisenhower/Truman.
Double Felix
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
H.W. Bush and Gore had the benefit of being incumbent VPs.
As soon as the Democrats picked Mondale, I knew he was going to lose.
As soon as the Democrats picked Dukakis, I knew he was going to lose.
As soon as the Republicans picked Dole, I knew he was going to lose.
As soon as the Democrats picked Kerry... well, this race is pretty tight.
:-/
- Felix
Wakboth
I think being dishonest in such a clumsy and transparent way is stupid in itself.
-- Wakboth
Bobby D. Bryant
The various parties (and not just the two big ones) do seem bent on
nominating the blandest people they can come up with.
Gregwrld
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> > <- snippage ->
> >
> > > Within the secular humanist viewpoint/ worldview/ faith, there is no
> > > longer any need for an individual to feel "guilt" about anything
> > > having to do with one's own sexual activity
> >
> > And as long as you don't do any harm to others, there is no reason
> > to feel guilty. So your point is?
>
> I have no point.
>
> pre-born human life without that human life's consent, does that
> member of the medical profession [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> do I [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> sex occurred (perhaps through the administration of drugs or
> anesthesia), did "P" [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> varieties
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Typical fundie prude - your definitions of sexual activities all lie
at the
extremes. Secular humanism to you is obviously one huge, depraved orgy
where no one looks out for the consequences.
But we're smarter than that - and smarter than you.
Greg Czebatol
Gregwrld (pass that gallon of lube)
Gregwrld
Do you get the impression df spends far too much time thinking about
these things? Another typical fundie trait from a guy who claims not
to be...
Greg Czebatol
Gregwrld
Bobby D. Bryant
> Secular humanism to you is obviously one huge, depraved orgy
Yeah, and now that the word's out we'll have to print up more enrollment
forms.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:35:13 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
>> amhov...@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
>> news:<705782b9.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>>> news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>>> > Cheezits <cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:<Xns956EEE12FC02Cc...@129.250.170.83>...
>>> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>>> > > > Secular humanists Morain & Morain state that [Morain &
>>> > > > Morain]"humanism.... frees one from guilt":
>>> > >
>>> > > Well, it can certainly free one from pointless guilt over what goes
>>> > > on between consenting adults and concerns no one else.
>>> >
>>> > Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes
>>> > on between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>>>
>>> (Disregarding the fact that you obviously didn't read the post you
>>> responded to, as 10-year-olds are not adults) Are you trying to tell me
>>> I ought to feel guilty over what I, at 10, did with other 10 year olds?
>>> Even if everyone agreed & had fun & noone got hurt?
>>
>> I'm not trying to tell you that you ought to feel guilty over any sort
>> of action, done this year or when you were 10.
>>
>> BTW, what are your answers to these questions?:
>>
>> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between consenting" 10-year-old children?
>>
>> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between consenting" 8-year-old children and those 60+?
>>
>> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between consenting" children and their parents?
>>
>> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between" people and animals?
>>
>> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between" people and comatose humans?
>>
>> Can secular humanism [C]"free one from pointless guilt over what goes on
>> between" people and dead human bodies?
>
> I wonder whether David's god ever feels guilty about any of this. Surely
> an omni*ent creator could have arranged things so that the equipment only
> works in approved contexts. Why did he rely on something so culturally
> variable and generally ineffective as guilt instead? Or for that matter,
> why did he rely on biology for bringing new souls into the world to begin
> with?
>
> Can David's theology free his god from well merited guilt over what goes
> on in the universe?
>
> Will all the abused children absolve him on judgement day?
David, could I have a reply on this before you move on to your next batch
of questions, please?
Cheezits
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>> If my sexual activity spreads sexually-transmitted diseases, do I
>> [RS]"do any harm to others"?
Gee, where's the harm in that??? I can't figure it out! (Sheesh.)
>> If someone has sex with 20 people within a room within 2 hours, does
>> that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
[etc.]
> Do you get the impression df spends far too much time thinking about
> these things? Another typical fundie trait from a guy who claims not
> to be...
Especially that bit about having sex with 20 people in 2 hours. My fantasy
life can't compete with his. :-D
Sue (20 people in 2 hours??)
Christopher A. Lee
The moron imagines he is a foot-soldier for God firing pot-shots with
silver bullets at us. He is incapable of live and let live. And
because these are silver bullets that demolish us, he is not required
to answer responses. In his mind all he has to do is duck lead
bullets.
Ferrous Patella
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu>:
[...]
> The various parties (and not just the two big ones) do seem bent on
> nominating the blandest people they can come up with.
Right now, I could do with someone a little less exciting in the White
House.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
sto...@the.net
wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.28....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:28:10 +0000, GlennGlenn wrote:
>>
>> > I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
>> > if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
>> > waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
>> > varieties."
>> >
>> > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
>>
>> Sorry; all that stuff is reserved for _sexular_ humanists.
>
>Even we sexular humanists have it bad. It used to be that we could
>easily go door-to-door with copies of the Kama Sutra and win lots of
>converts over to sexularism. Now we're trying to put a sexular
>government in place, but so far no luck. None of the US politicians
>since Clinton are sexular enough to satisfy us.
"sexualrity sexularity."
sto...@the.net
(Greg G) wrote:
>lil...@umich.edu (Lilith) wrote in message news:<75200cbc.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.28....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:28:10 +0000, GlennGlenn wrote:
>> >
>> > > I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
>> > > if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
>> > > waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
>> > > varieties."
>> > >
>> > > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
>> >
>> > Sorry; all that stuff is reserved for _sexular_ humanists.
>>
>> Even we sexular humanists have it bad. It used to be that we could
>> easily go door-to-door with copies of the Kama Sutra and win lots of
>> converts over to sexularism. Now we're trying to put a sexular
>> government in place, but so far no luck. None of the US politicians
>> since Clinton are sexular enough to satisfy us.
>
>We have a Bush and a Dick in the White House now. There are two Johns
>running against them, if you would prefer some bathroom humor.
The dick is in the bush and they've been wiping their arses with the
US Constitution.
sto...@the.net
<rscraw...@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote:
What about the Plein Aire sexulars?
sto...@the.net
Better Holmes and Garters? ;)
Elf M. Sternberg
> I've been a secular humanist for many, many years... maybe all my life,
> if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm still
> waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
> varieties."
> When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
Don't bother. I tried that back in the 90's. It wasn't as much
fun as they make it sound.
Elf
Bobby D. Bryant
> GCze...@msn.com (Gregwrld) wrote:
>
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>> news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>> If someone has sex with 20 people within a room within 2 hours, does
>>> that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
> [etc.]
>> Do you get the impression df spends far too much time thinking about
>> these things? Another typical fundie trait from a guy who claims not to
>> be...
>
> Especially that bit about having sex with 20 people in 2 hours. My
> fantasy life can't compete with his. :-D
>
> Sue (20 people in 2 hours??)
The monk sits in his cell wondering how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin and how many times a secular humanist copulates in two hours.
Ian Braidwood
> Ian Braidwood wrote in talk.origins
>
> > Dick C <foo.d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9570BDC3774B2...@216.196.97.136>...
> >> Ian Braidwood wrote in talk.origins
> >> Strangely enough, I don't feel a great need to justify my decisions
> >> by what others think. Nor am I interested in all sorts of philosophical
> >> discussions. That type of thing bores me stiff.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting you have to justify your decisions; merely that an
> > imformed decision is usually the better one.
>
> While that may be, but I am not sure what decision you are talking
> about.
I'm talking generally, so the decisions are any decisions you might
make.
> >> > For instance, you might want to reconsider any patriotism you feel if
> >> > you read a text on Humanism.
> >>
> >> Or not. I realize that man is a territorial pack animal. And reading
> >> about how that is wrong is not going to change my heritage. We tend
> >> to protect and promote our families. If we don't have a strong family
> >> connection we will form one with others like us (gangs for instance).
> >> we also tend to protect our territories, our homes, our countries.
> >> And I realize that there is often a strong religious element in
> >> patriotism for some people, but that does not change the fact that
> >> I am patriotic myself.
> >
> > Very fatalistic, but really you don't have to be defensive, I'm not
> > trying to run your life, rather the opposite.
>
> I am not being fatalistic. And I still fail to see any need to read
> those texts.
Are you failing to realise that just accepting that your behaviour is
instinctive is quintessentially fatalistic, or do you just not
understand what fatalistic means?
> > The point about patriotism isn't that it is wrong in some sort of
> > moral sense, but that it is just plain foolish. You had no choice over
> > where you were born, so why take pride in any being a memember of a
> > particular population; as if you had something to do with its
> > achievements?
>
> I had no choice over where I was born, but I do have a choice over
> where to live, and I also know why we take pride in the accomplishments
> of others. As I said, we are territorial pack animals.
Again, fatalistic. Even if we were 'territorial pack animals' - which
we are not - why just accept it? If you just accept your 'nature',
then you haven't made a decision in any real sense any more than a dog
does when it scent marks.
> >> > Myself, I've read books on Secular Humanism, Islam, and Buddhism, and
> >> > have books as yet unread on Hinduism, Judaism and the Gnostics, as
> >> > well as the other three.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not so stupid that I believe everything I read and can
> >> > cherry-pick from any source. That is true independence.
> >>
> >> Or the need to immerse myself in all sorts of stuff that I do not
> >> find a use for.
> >
> > Well, you're never going to know whether any of it is useful to you,
> > unless you read it; any more than you're going to know what an
> > unfamiliar meal is like without tasting it.
>
> On the other hand, I find that kind of material very boring and
> what I have read has never been useful. Why keep going back to
> the same buffet when everything you have tried is of no interest?
What exactly have you tried?
To continue your metaphore, if you go to a poor buffet and eat a badly
cooked meal, can you really say you know what it tastes like?
What I'm suggesting is having an open, enquiring mind, for the simple
reason that if you don't think for yourself, then others will happily
do your thinking for you and they will not have your interests at
heart.
Do you want to chose your own path or be corralled like an animal?
(-: Ian :-)
John Wilkins
> GCze...@msn.com (Gregwrld) wrote:
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> > news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> [etc.]
> >> If my sexual activity spreads sexually-transmitted diseases, do I
> >> [RS]"do any harm to others"?
>
> Gee, where's the harm in that??? I can't figure it out! (Sheesh.)
>
> >> If someone has sex with 20 people within a room within 2 hours, does
> >> that someone [RS]"do any harm to others"?
> [etc.]
> > Do you get the impression df spends far too much time thinking about
> > these things? Another typical fundie trait from a guy who claims not
> > to be...
>
> Especially that bit about having sex with 20 people in 2 hours. My fantasy
> life can't compete with his. :-D
>
> Sue (20 people in 2 hours??)
Well, I'm clearly not doing well as a sexular humanist - 2 people in 20
years... why wasn't I given the manual earlier?
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Noelie S. Alito
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:20:56 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2004.09.28....@mail.utexas.edu>...
> >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:28:10 +0000, GlennGlenn wrote:
> >>
> >> > life, if you don't quibble over the defitition of the term, and I'm
> >> > still waiting for my chance "to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of
> >> > many varieties."
> >> >
> >> > When does this happen? Do I have to go somewhere and sign up?
> >>
> >
> > D'oh! One letter off....
>
> Yes, but that one letter puts them way down the hall, past the Sedentary,
> Segmented, Selective, Self-Selective, Semiotic, Senescent, Septic,
> Sequential, Sequesterd, Serial, Sessile, SETI, and Severe Humanists.
As you're passing the Sessile Humanists door, you're invited to pop
in for a cup of tea with me.
Noelie, who spends way too much time at her 'puter
--
nnooee...@mmaaiill.uutteexxaass.eedduu
John Wilkins
Sometime well after that, when you pass Symbiotic Humanists, say hi to
me
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
I have a life - it belongs to my computer...