Sheesh...I'm so glad we men are such simple folk. No having to mess around trying to figure it out or get it right. Couldn't be any easier. It's right out there, even at the right angle. Reckon there are any evolutionary-type theories on why masturbation is so much easier for guys than girls?
-
How do you masterbate??
-
People evolved to procreate, not masturbate. In fact the female orgasm may be an accident of evolution.
-
you hear that?! women are accidents! HA! I KNEW IT!
-
In reply to: In fact the female orgasm may be an accident of evolution. or an intentional act of creation
-
Not falsifiable, so can never be answered. That kind of thinking is a dead end. Anyway, I'm not sure why the all-knowing designer's designs are so flawed (the difficulty females have with orgasms is just one of the countless problems).On the other hand, science makes hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests things, and modified ideas based on new results and new learning.Do you still not understand why "intelligent design" has nothing to do with science?
-
With evolution everything is an accident.
-
From Slate: The female orgasm as evolution's happy accident.This is the sidebar to the article:In reply to:Misconception No. 1: If female orgasm does not provide a direct evolutionary advantage, it will eventually disappear.Correction: Female orgasm isn't going away. Because male orgasm is so strongly selected for, and because male and female sex organs are derived from the same embryonic tissue, there is no reason that female orgasm should diminish over time.Misconception No. 2: If female orgasm does not offer an evolutionary advantage, this must mean that women's sexual pleasure and the clitoris are evolutionarily unimportant.Correction: Women's sexual pleasure and the clitoris serve the evolutionary purposes of encouraging women to have sex, get pregnant, and pass their genes on to the next generation. Lloyd's distinction is between sexual pleasure, which is clearly selected for, and the particular reflex of orgasm, which may not be.Misconception No. 3: If female orgasm is not selected for, it must be a "gift from God" or a sign that intelligent design is at work.Correction: According to Symons' and Lloyd's theory, which focuses on the common embryological origins of male and female genitalia, female orgasm is a logical outcome of natural selection in males. It presents no challenge whatsoever to evolutionary theory.> how do you masterbate??Debating theology and science. Mas-debating.
-
In reply to:
Not falsifiable, so can never be answered.
That's not true. Just because it can't be answered scientifically (or maybe I should say if it can't) doesn't mean it can't be answered.
In reply to:
That kind of thinking is a dead end.
That's your perception. Thanks for sharing it.
In reply to:
Anyway, I'm not sure why the all-knowing designer's designs are so flawed
It wasn't originally a flawed creation. It has become a flawed creation.
In reply to:
(the difficulty females have with orgasms is just one of the countless problems).
Is this the same female orgasm that you just recently referred to as an "accident of evolution"?
In reply to:
On the other hand, science makes hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests things, and modified ideas based on new results and new learning.
I am very well versed in the scientiic process. But thanks for your little refresher course. However, what you don't seem to understand is that science is not the only way of knowing. It is one of several. There is an arrogance within the scientific that stems from its assertion that naturalism is all there is and all there ever was. That is an assumption that is not falsifiable and is has never been proven to be any more than an assumption.
But frankly, I don't really have the time or the inclination to have this discussion. I don't think its wanted here. It is a dead horse that has been beaten to a pulp on this board. There is way to much frikkin noise in my life right now. I really don't need more.
-
That's not true. Just because it can't be answered scientifically (or maybe I should say if it can't) doesn't mean it can't be answered.It can be answered by a faith-based explanation. Once you have the "defined" answer, where do you go? Why bother studying the matter further if God has already revealed the answer? Some things that have no scientific explanation today may have one tomorrow.You were quick to post a reply, but I doubt that you read the articles that quickly. What happens if and when science finds clear reasons, for instance, for the female orgasm? Does the domain of faith-based explanations shrink again?>> That kind of thinking is a dead end.> That's your perception. Thanks for sharing it.For the reasons mentioned above; where do you go with a faith-based reason?> It wasn't originally a flawed creation. It has become a flawed creation.The apologetics never end. No matter how screwed up things are, nothing is ever the fault of the creator. GM and Ford wish they were in that position. Why would the all-knowing creator create something so easily broken?>> (the difficulty females have with orgasms is just one of the countless problems).> Is this the same female orgasm that you just recently referred to as an "accident of evolution"?Yes. The point is that things evolve in a certain direction, but never achieve perfection. What is your point?> On the other hand, science makes hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests things, and modified ideas based on new results and new learning.> I am very well versed in the scientiic process. But thanks for your little refresher course.Nothing personal, but I wouldn't have guessed that, based on your postings.> However, what you don't seem to understand is that science is not the only way of knowing. It is one of several. There is an arrogance within the scientific that stems from its assertion that naturalism is all there is and all there ever was. That is an assumption that is not falsifiable and is has never been proven to be any more than an assumption.One of several? What are the others? Science has lead to an explanation for the mechanics of the universe, space travel, modern medicine, pharmaceuticals, iPods, cars, trains, airplanes, clean water, and on and on and on. Religion and philosophy have led to....what? Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, the meaning of existence, and so on. There is nothing arrogant about it.Science explains how chemical substances interact. If you have a contradicting faith-based belief, what are we supposed to do with it? If your belief preceded the scientific discoveries, would you be upset with the scientists for arrogantly not accepting your belief as the end of the story?I don't know what you meant by the last sentence quoted. The idea of falsifiability is that things can be tested through experimentation. That is the objective of science.> its assertion that naturalism is all there is and all there ever wasScience does not assert that, and by saying that, you are asserting your lack of understanding of science. Individual scientists have their own beliefs.> But frankly, I don't really have the time or the inclination to have this discussion. I don't think its wanted here. It is a dead horse that has been beaten to a pulp on this board. There is way to much frikkin noise in my life right now. I really don't need more.You need to understand what science is and what it asserts. It will take some time, but it will be worthwhile.
-
Damien, AgreedBy the way SteveA -- The last time I checked, Science has yet been able to disprove any of the items found in the Bible.In fact, any time someone sets out for that task, they wind up proving instead of disproving.Personally, I will take my faith over your "facts" any day. But that is just me.I find science a great way to more fully understand the creation that God gave me.
-
The last time I checked, Science has yet been able to disprove any of the items found in the Bible.Science doesn't prove or disprove anything (something the "intelligent design folks can't seem to grasp). But it does cast some fanciful biblical ideas into grave doubt. The idea that the Earth was created 5000 years ago is irrational.> In fact, any time someone sets out for that task, they wind up proving instead of disproving.That's silly fundamentalist propaganda. Now are you going to tell me that science has proven the Noah myth?> Personally, I will take my faith over your "facts" any day. But that is just me.That's fine. Keep your non-"facts" out of the science classroom.Religion has contributed absolutely nothing to the understanding of the natural world. There is nothing in the scriptures of any religion atoms, molecules, molecular biology, genes, planets, stars, pulsars, and on and on, ad nauseum. If you're searching for meaning and ethics, religion and philosophy are fine, but they are utter dead ends if you want to understand how the universe functions. It has no mechanism to explore ideas in that domain.> I find science a great way to more fully understand the creation that God gave me.What happens when strong scientific evidence contradicts the bible in a way that even you can't discount? Will you have a major crisis of some sort?So if I forcefully disagree with you, I'm arrogant. If you forcefully disagree with me you're...what? From your past postings, I assume you're a fundamentalist Christian, so you feel about other religions the way that I feel about all religions. Does that make you a hypocrite as well?
-
In reply to: From your past postings, I assume you're a fundamentalist Christian, so you feel about other religions the way that I feel about all religions. Does that make you a hypocrite as well? You're still doing it.
-
Wow, I need to footnote everything for you.
In reply to:
Jesus was the fullfillment of the old testament.
In reply to:
God made our bodies to enjoy sex. Based on religious believe that sex belongs between 2 people in marriage, I find nothing in scripture that prohibits any sex act between the couple. If you want some good ideas, read Song of Solomon.
Re: Can/ Should Christian masturbate?
In reply to:
As a christian...
In reply to:
The last time I checked, Science has yet been able to disprove any of the items found in the Bible.
In fact, any time someone sets out for that task, they wind up proving instead of disproving.
Personally, I will take my faith over your "facts" any day. But that is just me.
I find science a great way to more fully understand the creation that God gave me.
Are you going to Bill Clinton me over the definition of "fundamentalist Christian"?
This is what I meant about keeping up. You assume I just pull things out of the air if I don't footnote (and sometimes even if I do footnoted). The last time I said it, you blindly took it as a random insult.
-
You need to stop jumping to conclusions there Buddy.
I was not even talking to/referring to/alluding to ANY of that. You just wasted a lot of time, space and energy.
So maybe you should cease and desist with the "keep up" crap and stop being so damned jumpy.
-
Well then, WTF exactly are you talking about?
Do you agree with the statement you cited and didn't like, or do you disagree with it?
Shall I stop wasting time by replying to you?
-
WTF I am talking about is your erroneously extrapolating from Christian to hypocrite, just like you erroneosly extrapolated from "his post could be true" to gullible. You do this a lot and you should stop it.
-
No, I'm extrapolating from "fundamentalist" to hypocrite. If I criticize your beliefs (and everyone's religious beliefs), and you criticize the beliefs of some other religion, then who is a hypocrite?If you're a fundamentalist, you have to disagree with other religions. In fact, is that arrogance?
-
Well, then you extrapolated from Christian to fundamental. Not cool.And it's neither hypocritical nor arrogant.
-
Okay boys.....Keep it cool here... We always get all revved up when we chat about religion. Lets, change the topic or end the thread..Okay?This is way off topic.
-
damien> Honestly, I have no idea what your talking about. I don't think the flavor matters. Now you're obviously just trying to annoy me.Roc> Keep it cool here...This is way off topic.OK, I won't say anything about The Exorcist.
