is premarital sex bad? why?

[goout]

You do realize that wasnt my position, right? Or did you just cut off the rest of my explanation because it would be harder for you to sneer down at me if you left it? Its always easier to tell someone who they are and what they believe than it is to ask questions and try to really understand, but it’s nowhere near as accurate.

Regardless, I don’t think there’s any way for your assertion to be true. Certainly religious principles have been absorbed into culture and the thought processes of those who live in them - that’s a given. But there’s also a strong biological element at work that plays out similarly with higher primates. There are also moral outlooks that don’t start off with the inherent value of human life (which is largely a judeo-christian belief) that have guided successful societies before. Dividing morality into believers vs not fails to consider all of the nuances that have existed between thousands of conceptions of god throughout human history.

Human morality is extremely complex, and it’s interesting to see how ideas have moved over the globe, evolved, and changed. Saying “believers good, atheists evil” may make you feel good about yourself, but it really isn’t supported by history and most of the world’s philosophers would disagree with your classification. Its somewhere between lazy and dishonest, depending on your motive.

I don’t see where anyone is claiming atheists are inherently evil.

What we have is a claim to morality on the part of atheists without

1. knowing what morality is
2. having any reference point whatsoever as a basis for moral evaluations, other than vague appeals to popular opinion and orientations, which in the end are proven to be quicksand.

 

[o_mlly]

… Is it selfish to only just want to give everything to one individual?..

Premarital sex is bad because both partners presumptively and unjustly foists onto the community the cost to raise their child. Today, about $250,000 in the USA.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I do understand, of course, that you don’t concede my point.

But, it remains: any atheist who is moral is simply borrowing from the worldview of the Believer.

There is no coherent reason any atheist should tell another atheist: you have a moral obligation to do A, B and C and not do C, D and E.

She can, of course, identify A, B and C as moral actions and C, D and E as immoral actions, by the light of human reason (infused, of course, by God), but, again, when she says to another person: you have some moral obligations…

it is an incoherent position for the atheist.

Do you have any evidence for this position? I mean, evidence other than “I can’t personally see any obligation to behave morally without god, so I’m assuming no one else can either”?

For what it’s worth, the disagreements on real world moral issues (where theory plays out) like abortion, sex, animal welfare, aid to the developing world, end of life care, war, crime and punishment, etc not only between believers and nonbelievers but within each group proves a lot more nuance on both “sides” than you realize. Even people who believe deeply in the same theology can have very different beliefs on these things, and that’s to say nothing of two people of very different faiths.

I wouldn’t put money on the moral distance between a Christian and an atheist being larger than between two Christians. And I certainly wouldn’t bet on a Christian and atheist being further than a Christian and a member of a non Abrahamic faith. As far as atheists go, Ayn Rand and Peter Singer could not be more different.

Its just a lot more complicated than belief vs. not. Unfortunately, in your effort to make it simple, you’re making a lot of bigoted and dehumanizing statements about others on the basis of faith.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t see where anyone is claiming atheists are inherently evil.

What we have is a claim to morality on the part of atheists without

1. knowing what morality is
2. having any reference point whatsoever as a basis for moral evaluations, other than vague appeals to popular opinion and orientations, which in the end are proven to be quicksand.

For instance, utilitarianism, whether you agree with it or not, is a very consistent moral system that does not appeal to a higher power or popular opinion.

Given the aforementioned differences in people of faith, I have a hard time respecting their moral outlooks as any more firm than a nonbeliever’s.

People are people. If they’re good and religious, they’ll be good. If they’re good and not religious, they’ll be good. If they aren’t good, they’ll either do it in spite of, or in the name of, their religion. But on an individual level (violent offenders in prison) and societal level (unrest in the middle east) it comes down to many factors. Religion has little to do with it. Even on the most fundamental level, a belief in god but a disagreement on the nature of god is no more unified than belief vs. unbelief.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

By the way, what I’ve said in this thread is almost verbatim what I say when atheists get on their high horses about violence in religion, or what I say when anyone starts going on about Islam being inherently whatever.

I don’t discriminate. I don’t like presumptive attitudes about other worldviews from anyone because it’s just not knowledge anyone can possess.

 

[goout]

For instance, utilitarianism, whether you agree with it or not, is a very consistent moral system that does not appeal to a higher power or popular opinion.

Given the aforementioned differences in people of faith, I have a hard time respecting their moral outlooks as any more firm than a nonbeliever’s.

People are people. If they’re good and religious, they’ll be good. If they’re good and not religious, they’ll be good. If they aren’t good, they’ll either do it in spite of, or in the name of, their religion. But on an individual level (violent offenders in prison) and societal level (unrest in the middle east) it comes down to many factors. Religion has little to do with it. Even on the most fundamental level, a belief in god but a disagreement on the nature of god is no more unified than belief vs. unbelief.

Morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good, not a system of categorization.

When you call people “good” you need to have a reference point.
You say “if they’re good…they’ll be good.”
What does that mean? It seems to me you are passing judgment on groups of people and placing them in categories.

Given that everyone does good things and bad things, we need to move beyond categorizations to a reference point from which moral evaluations can be made.
What you call good might not be good for another. Yet I hear you calling from some objective reference point in order to categorize human beings. That doesn’t necessarily make sense.

Being religious doesn’t have much to do with this. A religious person can be unhinged from morality. Religion would seem to present a platform for good formation, but not in all cases, obviously.

At the very least, religious practice seems to point one to an objcective standard of reference for the good, as opposed to the atheist insistence that no such objective standards are available.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

, as opposed to the atheist insistence that no such objective standards are available.

Is that the atheist insistence? Sam Harris actually gave a TED talk about how science can point to objective morality. Not that I agree with him, but it was something to consider.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re ascribing a moral “insistence” to millions of people, and responding to objections with “I know you better than you do”. It’s a lot like ascribing absolute morality to Christians. It makes no sense to do so when even as individuals they cling to different moral codes.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have any evidence for this position?

Just philosophical and logical evidence.

Let’s say there’s a conversation that goes like this:

Blue Eyed Lady: “I believe that only US citizens should vote in the election!”
PR: “I agree!”

And then I say, “So you agree that these folks should be able to vote” (given the legal age requirement as well)

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sl...zenshipCeremony.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

And you respond with “Do you have any evidence that I said that Hispanics can vote?”

Well, no, but it’s something one can logically conclude.

Even if you haven’t mouthed the words.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Just philosophical and logical evidence.

So because you can’t think of a way for nonbelievers to have a firm moral code, they can’t. Fortunately, we aren’t all limited by your mindset.

This all rests on believers the world over having something fundamental and unifying that nonbelievers don’t. No such common foundation exists between all the world’s faiths, much less their adherents.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have any evidence for this position? I mean, evidence other than “I can’t personally see any obligation to behave morally without god, so I’m assuming no one else can either”?

Moral obligation simply cannot be prescinded from a belief in a Moral Lawgiver.

If one believes in the former, it presupposes that you believe in the latter.

Otherwise, it is no more a moral obligation than it is to prefer one’s turnips mashed instead of fried. That’s simply a preference.

So, either moral acts are obligatory, or they are just tastes.

 

[PRmerger]

So because you can’t think of a way for nonbelievers to have a firm moral code, they can’t. Fortunately, we aren’t all limited by your mindset.

Again, we’re not talking about moral codes.

As I already stated (multiple times): atheists can discern what’s moral and what’s not.

(I think you would like it for Believers to say that atheists can’t have moral codes, for that would be a stupid assertion which you could easily refute. But that’s not what’s being argued here, so please stop going there.)

What’s an incoherent position for atheists is to declare these moral codes to be moral obligations.

There can be no “oughts” with atheism. Only “I think it’s yucky when Person A does Action B”.

And that’s a otiose position and one that opens all sorts of avenues for evil behavior to be tolerated.

 

[goout]

Is that the atheist insistence? Sam Harris actually gave a TED talk about how science can point to objective morality. Not that I agree with him, but it was something to consider.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re ascribing a moral “insistence” to millions of people, and responding to objections with “I know you better than you do”. It’s a lot like ascribing absolute morality to Christians. It makes no sense to do so when even as individuals they cling to different moral codes.

Well, ok then. We hear this a lot.

Where are the standards? You can ask me a number of moral questions to which I will provide specific moral evaluations.
If you ask me why I am pro-life, or why I think we have an obligation to feed the hungry, or why I think the human rights of all people should be upheld, I can point to specific statements that are founded in objective goods.

Help us out here. I don’t want to unjustly ascribe anything to atheists which are not believed by athesits.
(before you begin, you should note that most atheists will deny they even have beliefs, as if beliefs are only for religious people. Which is just laughably absurd.)
So yes please help us out here. We don’t want to ascribe to you.

 

[EasterJoy]

Premarital sex is bad because both partners presumptively and unjustly foists onto the community the cost to raise their child. Today, about $250,000 in the USA.

There is no necessary connection between marital status and the financial capacity to shoulder the costs of raising a child. Marriage does not magically make people who may become parents financially solvent for life. Irresponsibly and yet willfully entering into parenthood when you know very well that you lack some necessary component required for responsible parenthood is a different moral fault than fornication.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hello everyone.

My issue involves premarital sex.

On closer inspection, these are actually a lot of different questions from what the title suggests.

Should we save ourselves for the one person we love? or are we harming ourselves by repressing our biological function of sex?

It is a lie that exercising continence is “repressing our biological function of sex.” I don’t know who spread the idea that ancient humans just willy-nilly had sex with whatever attractive person that walked by, but I don’t think even the great apes actually do that. Primates have a brain, and they use it to be selective about their sexual partners.

Is sex more than just an act?

Again: We are intellectual beings, not bio-automatons. What voluntary function* isn’t *more than just an act to us? Let us not con ourselves into believing that we can will a profoundly emotional act to be a mere physical release or some nonsense like that.

is it wrong to give ourselves to other people and truly love them before meeting our spouse? because that way we have loved more. Is it selfish to only just want to give everything to one individual? is it selfish to be upset if your spouse has had other sex partners in the past because you wished you loved them? or is it selfish to love others before your spouse with sex because you have ruined the purpose of marriage?

You have to ask yourself if a lack of self-control is really evidence of greater love. Premarital sex is the path of least resistance. Two total strangers can do it, and to be cruelly blunt, they are more likely to do it if they are under the influence of intoxicants that rob them of their self-control. Who on earth, then, is going to take the decision to be less discriminating rather than more discriminating about how we share physical intimacy as evidence that we “loved more”? That doesn’t even make sense.

It also does not make sense to make a lack of self-control in the past into a permanent character trait. Therefore, it can be “selfish” to refuse to forgive someone for known past acts when you promised in your marriage vows to take them as you knew they were, for better or worse, when you married them. It is of course selfish to promise to be true to someone when you had to conceal your past in order to get their consent.

As for the total self-gift of marriage, I think it is unwise to pressure someone into giving consent they do not give freely, regardless of their reasons. If they do not feel they can give themselves totally to someone who has had other sexual partners, so be it. Really–if they cannot give themselves 100% to a true blonde, oh well. People have their foibles, and this is a big commitment. The only requirement is to be honest about whether you are all in when you say you are all in.

If they decide they can, there is no reason to believe their marriage is “ruined” before it starts. The sin of fornication, if repented, is not an impediment to a valid marriage. That is because fornication does not automatically “ruin” the purpose of marriage for the rest of the person’s life. It is a serious transgression from which repentance and amendment is possible. If the prospective spouse thinks this aspect of the person’s life is significant, it must be disclosed. If they forgive it and make their vows, anyway, it is on them to follow through, just as it is on them to live with every other condition that they knew about and decided was not a barrier to their full consent.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no necessary connection between marital status and the financial capacity to shoulder the costs of raising a child.

You miss the point; it is not one of financial capacity but rather willingness. The point is that those who are married explicitly declare to the community their willingness to bear the costs of their children to the best of their ability. Fornicators make no such declaration of commitment to the community.

Marriage does not magically make people who may become parents financially solvent for life.

Who said it does?

Irresponsibly and yet willfully entering into parenthood when you know very well that you lack some necessary component required for responsible parenthood is a different moral fault than fornication.

What? The necessary component the fornicators lack is marriage. Since neither married couples nor fornicators know the future with certainty, what is your point?

 

[EasterJoy]

Is that the atheist insistence? Sam Harris actually gave a TED talk about how science can point to objective morality. Not that I agree with him, but it was something to consider.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re ascribing a moral “insistence” to millions of people, and responding to objections with “I know you better than you do”. It’s a lot like ascribing absolute morality to Christians. It makes no sense to do so when even as individuals they cling to different moral codes.

It is, after all, a tenet of Christianity that non-believers can and do have the capacity to follow moral law and that they are apt to be rewarded for their adherence to moral law as they understood it:

There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. Rom 2:13-16

Those who have the law, meanwhile, know that we do not succeed in keeping it. We are on no ground to judge those who do not keep it because they do not know it, for each one will be judged by the One who knows truly what knowledge each one had and what graces each one had to work with:
Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance? By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
Rom 2:1-8

 

[EasterJoy]

You miss the point; it is not one of financial capacity but rather willingness. The point is that those who are married explicitly declare to the community their willingness to bear the costs of their children to the best of their ability. Fornicators make no such declaration of commitment to the community.
Who said it does?
What? The necessary component the fornicators lack is marriage. Since neither married couples nor fornicators know the future with certainty, what is your point?

My point is that in our age people marry and then abandon their spouses and children all of the time, while people who do not see any need to involve the community in their commitment to their own children and their own partners fail to marry and yet succeed in actually carrying out the works required of the married.

Honestly, I met two brothers who were both–I kid you not–living with the mothers of their children for over ten years and still had not gotten around to marrying because they didn’t see a reason to involve the state in their affairs. This is why some states have instituted “common law” marriages: that is, because they have deemed it true that living a married life eventually obligates you to continue in the state you have clearly chosen. I think the two brothers finally married in order to give the mothers of their children the rights that their spouse would have if they died, such as Social Security benefits and so on. They decided that marriage forced the community to recognize their commitment and to give the benefits it deserved. Other than that, they took it as an insult that they needed a state-run farce to enforce their personal commitments.

Yes, I’m saying that the two institutions of common law marriage and no-fault divorce shoot big holes in what marriage is intended to be. The civil institution has been gutted and warped, and that is the institution of marriage left to those who have no other form of marriage than the form provided by their states. Of course some people who are committed to the real ideals of marriage are wary of it. Who wouldn’t be?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Well, ok then. We hear this a lot.

Where are the standards? You can ask me a number of moral questions to which I will provide specific moral evaluations.
If you ask me why I am pro-life, or why I think we have an obligation to feed the hungry, or why I think the human rights of all people should be upheld, I can point to specific statements that are founded in objective goods.

Help us out here. I don’t want to unjustly ascribe anything to atheists which are not believed by athesits.
(before you begin, you should note that most atheists will deny they even have beliefs, as if beliefs are only for religious people. Which is just laughably absurd.)
So yes please help us out here. We don’t want to ascribe to you.

This exactly! I can’t sit here and speak for all atheists any more than I look to you to speak for all Christians. Like the earlier example of Singer and Rand, who would both claim a moral system based on objective truth and like believers of every stripe also claim objective moral truth. But obviously, they can’t all have it. I get drawing a line between those who share your beliefs and those who don’t. But a line between people who believe in something (anything) and those who don’t seems much more arbitrary since there isn’t a moral foundation, source, or ideology common to believers that non believers lack.

Statements that lump the moral reasoning of millions of people into the same offensive, small-minded bin is to deny the critical thinking skills of anyone who disagrees with you and shut down any positive conversation on our common humanity.

Rather than “atheists can’t point to any moral obligations”, it seems to me that it would be more effective and charitable to say “Would a nonbeliever point to moral absolutes? If so, on what grounds?”. It’s fine to question and dig deeper. But telling someone that it’s impossible for them to have the beliefs or views they do is presumptuous, arrogant, and uncharitable.

I’m sure it’s frustrating to be told over and over that Catholics have animosity towards women and gays because if some of the church’s teachings. A lot of people, myself included, struggle to understand how the church’s view of women and gays is anything but hateful. But I really try to give the benefit of the doubt to Christians who are tired of being called bigots. Because it’s a worldview that’s really very foreign to me, but I trust they know better than I do what’s in their hearts. You should try to extend the same benefit of the doubt when someone else explains their spiritual or moral positions to you, even if you have a hard time understanding exactly how that mindset can be had.

 

[o_mlly]

My point is that in our age people marry and then abandon their spouses and children all of the time, while people who do not see any need to involve the community in their commitment to their own children and their own partners fail to marry and yet succeed in actually carrying out the works required of the married.

Abandonment is a different topic. Suggest you start a new thread.
How many examples of fornicators who have raised their children to 18 years w/o public aid can you offer?

Honestly, I met two brothers who were both–I kid you not–living with the mothers of their children for over ten years and still had not gotten around to marrying because they didn’t see a reason to involve the state in their affairs. This is why some states have instituted “common law” marriages: that is, because they have deemed it true that living a married life eventually obligates you to continue in the state you have clearly chosen. I think the two brothers finally married in order to give the mothers of their children the rights that their spouse would have if they died, such as Social Security benefits and so on. They decided that marriage forced the community to recognize their commitment and to give the benefits it deserved. Other than that, they took it as an insult that they needed a state-run farce to enforce their personal commitments.

Alls well that ends well. If these same couples fell on hard times, would they call welfare and food stamps a “state-run farce”?

Yes, I’m saying that the two institutions of common law marriage and no-fault divorce shoot big holes in what marriage is intended to be. The civil institution has been gutted and warped, and that is the institution of marriage left to those who have no other form of marriage than the form provided by their states. Of course some people who are committed to the real ideals of marriage are wary of it. Who wouldn’t be?

No-fault divorce is, again, a new topic worthy of a new thread. Common law marriages are not declared by the couple to the community but by the community to the couple. My point, I believe, still stands.

 

[EasterJoy]

Abandonment is a different topic. Suggest you start a new thread.
How many examples of fornicators who have raised their children to 18 years w/o public aid can you offer?
Alls well that ends well. If these same couples fell on hard times, would they call welfare and food stamps a “state-run farce”?
No-fault divorce is, again, a new topic worthy of a new thread. Common law marriages are not declared by the couple to the community but by the community to the couple. My point, I believe, still stands.

Excepting the case where the biological parents are not known, aid to children is based on their parents’ ability to support the child, not the marital status of the parents. Once paternity is established, your legal responsibility to support your child is the same, whether you are married or not. If you father a child and the child’s mother cannot support the child, be very sure that the state won’t let your decision not to marry her get in the way of coming after you for child support.

So no, I don’t support your premise. It is not the way the world currently works, because too many people tried to use avoidance of marriage as a way to avoid their parental responsibilities. That loophole does not cut it any more.