SEX, monogamy, baboons, etc.

by DanTheMan 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DanTheMan

  Interesting comments all.

  funky_derek, your posts kind of ruin any romantic notions about love & sex. It's all in the genes, ain't it?

  I guess I'm one of those that tries to "cheat" the system by aiming too high. Then I'm crushed by the rejection. Sort of the Beethoven syndrome, from what I know he always had these wild crushes on women that were unavailable to him. I need to bring my sights down to around 7 or so instead of 10.

  I guess the cold reality of it all is that, just like certain men are naturals at a sport, or a skill, some men are naturals at sex and women. I think it is something that they and the women they attract know on an intuitive level. And no amount of societal constraint is going to change the fact that certain men have sex with every woman they can including your wife.

  Xander, put me in the agnostic camp too. I was reading a book called "The Whole Shebang" and the author in discussing this issue made the succinct comment that there is no possible way to disprove the existence of God.
• 

  SPAZnik

  Neat thread, interesting comments and insights.

  I don't know about calling monogamy or polygamy "natural".
  It seems to be "behavioral" to me. Which implies choice, to this human.
  
  Jealousy and other emotions and resulting behaviors could be argued as natural, yes we use reason and ration (one would hope) to control ourselves in these areas, setting limits based on whatever standards we see as reasonable.

  Are monogamy or polygamy natural? Do we do anything to curb it in order to avoid repurcussions?
  I think sexuality is natural and monogamy and polygamy are chosen behaviors for the thinking human animal.

  SPAZ
• 

  patio34

  Hi Dan,

  You said:

  there's no way to disprove the existence of God

  so therefore being agnostic is a more reasonable position. However, there is no way to disprove the existence of invisible purple elephants in your driveway. Theists say there is no way to test for god, so therefore one must accept his existence or at the most, say they don't know. However, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion and as Carl Sagan said: the more fantastic the claim, the more evidence there must be. (I'm paraphrasing.) The same applies to aliens, religious visions, demons, etc. Where's the proof? It's perfectly reasonable to reject fantastic assertions when there's no proof. That's why faith is necessary and faith is the antithesis of proof.

  So, imo, being an atheist means simply that one is without belief in god and by no means puts the burden of proof on them. The burden is on the theist. Isn't the saying, you can't prove a negative?

  Pat