# For those that do not believe in God **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 12, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668 "2015-08-12T16:44:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/61 "2015-08-12T22:08:41Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Since the Romans were fanatics about keeping records, I think we’re gonna have to take their word for it that Jesus did actually come back from the dead, arising from the grave after being crucified. There are no contemporary records of any kind that have been found that record this. You have to wait many decades after supposed events before you even see it in Christian sources such as the gospels, and even the dates on those are arbitrary, with Mark probably being the earliest, but it too was many decades after supposed events. And as scholars have pointed out, they can’t with any degree of certainty know what was in it. It wasn’t till the middle of the second century, that others started calling them by the names that we call them by today. > [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > We are still referring to evolution as a theory for good reason. It’s a scientific theory, and some scientific theories are better than others, with the theory of evolution happening to be one of them. It is testable on many fronts, has predictive power, along with also being potentially falsifiable which are all of the good hallmarks of a good scientific theory. Many millions of potential fossil discoveries could disprove evolution if they were ever unearthed, but this hasn’t happened. Every new find only gives it more credence. It’s on par with the theory of an atom, which also happens to be a theory, which like the theory of evolution has predictive power, is testable, and is also potentially falsifiable. If you also doubt it and want to say it’s a “theory for good reason” too, place yourself at ground zero if the US ever starts testing any more atomic bombs. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/62 "2015-08-12T23:14:03Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Since there are SO many things in our universe that have to be _just so_or life couldn’t possibly exist. Repeated discoveries regarding intelligent life depends on such a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities that if they weren’t in place life couldn’t possibly exist. You’ve got it backwards. Circumstances didn’t come together just-so to create life. The life forms that we see, and the world in which they exist, formed because they’re what can form from the raw materials available. Had the solar system formed from a different mix of materials, there might still be living things, but they would almost certainly be very different. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/63 "2015-08-12T23:40:49Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > We are still referring to evolution as a theory for good reason. You’re just parading your ignorance when you say that. Actually, you’re parading someone else’s deceit, which is even sadder - You didn’t come up with the ‘just a theory’ thing on your own - it’s a common bit of bullshit put about by popular figures in the creationist circle, but bullshit it most certainly is. They know it’s bullshit, but they also know that they can convince people it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/64 "2015-08-13T00:05:56Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Being that this sensation is the latter and that I am a theist, I find it very easy to accept that God wanted to insure His children kept His earth adequately populated. Could there be other possible explanations? Assuming that you a a Christian, I don’t believe that your view here is Biblically supported; [QUOTE=1 Corinthians 7, 1-9] **7** **1** Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” **2** But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. **3** The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. **4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7** I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. **8** Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. \*\*9 \*\*But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. [/QUOTE] > [@1 Corinthians 7](#): > > **25** Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. **26** Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. **27** Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. **28** But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/65 "2015-08-13T00:58:59Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > It’s on par with the theory of an atom, which also happens to be a theory, which like the theory of evolution has predictive power, is testable, and is also potentially falsifiable. If you also doubt it and want to say it’s a “theory for good reason” too, place yourself at ground zero if the US ever starts testing any more atomic bombs. Why wait? How long until North Korea tests? According to some scare mongers, Iran will test in 15 years. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/66 "2015-08-13T01:44:00Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Shunpiker, I completely understand this: For me, the greatest sensation I’ve ever had comes from road-racing motorcycles. That feeling of quick, hard acceleration out of a curve while still leaned over is hard to trump. > > For me, it’s drag racing. At 66, that feeling of hard quick acceleration out of the hole when my hips are pinned to the seat pan are a solid second to an orgasm. I guess it varies from one guy to another. Even fishtailing my Triglide can be real fun at times. > > Others: > Since the Romans were fanatics about keeping records, I think we’re gonna have to take their word for it that Jesus did actually come back from the dead, arising from the grave after being crucified. > > Since there are SO many things in our universe that have to be _just so_or life couldn’t possibly exist. Repeated discoveries regarding intelligent life depends on such a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities that if they weren’t in place life couldn’t possibly exist. > > Then DNA really seals the deal. How could all these finite details just have happened to work out by accident? We are still referring to evolution as a theory for good reason. > > Phu Cat It appears you do not know the meaning of theory in the scientific sense, as opposed to cheap detective novels. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/67 "2015-08-13T02:42:53Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Since the Romans were fanatics about keeping records, I think we’re gonna have to take their word for it that Jesus did actually come back from the dead, arising from the grave after being crucified. Since the Romans were fanatics about keeping records and they have no records of Jesus’ existence, I suppose you’re going to take their word for it that he didn’t exist. I’m somehow doubting you’ll do so. Which illustrates the general problem I have with religious believers. They want to claim evidence supports their religious beliefs. But when they find out the evidence isn’t there, they maintain their religious beliefs rather than form a new conclusion. Faith and science are two different things. Science is when you believe something only because you have evidence that it is true. If you find out the evidence is wrong, you stop believing. Faith is when you believe something regardless of whether or not you have evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/68 "2015-08-13T03:35:08Z")
> [@Green\_Bean](#): > > Easy to modify? Are you kidding me? > > 1. When do you think that effective birth control became available to the general public? > > 2. When do you think that safe, easy, risk-free, reversible, and inexpensive birth control that doesn’t interfere with sexual pleasure became available to the general public? > > Answers in the spoiler box below: > > [spoiler] > > 1. The pill was approved for birth control use by the FDA in 1960, so that’s generally considered the watershed moment. That was only 55 years ago. > > 2. It hasn’t happened yet.[/spoiler] About the time the first guy discovered jerking off? As a birth control strategy, it’s at least as old as the Torah. (Cf Genesis 38.9) ---
**Author:** ![Vaevictis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f04885/32.png) [@Vaevictis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vaevictis)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/69 "2015-08-13T03:57:09Z")
> [@The\_Angry\_Badger](#): > > Actually, [no](http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/mantis1.asp). > > Just say’n… 🙂 > > As to the OP, it’s just logical, as has been mentioned upthread. Organisms that enjoy sex will do it more and have more babies. Organisms that don’t enjoy it won’t do it so much (if at all) and eventually their lineage will die out, leaving just the ones that enjoy it. You don’t have to call it evolution if that word offends you, but that’s the mechanism. This seems problematic on many levels, but just a few quick objections here – how do you know there is not a minimum plateau beyond which how much sex a species has does not make a meaningful difference to the survival of the species? Just a thought here, but is how often members of a species have sex directly correlated to how successful that species is in reproducing itself? Humans seem much more successful than some mammal species that have sex far more frequently --bonobos for example. Or take another tack on the same idea, we see a wide range of how often different species have sex. Yet some that don’t do it as often and some that do it much more are both having a lot of success reproducing their genes. Finally, how does the enormous amount of reproduction of single cell organisms which have no way of experiencing anything close to what we humans term pleasure fit into this? ---
**Author:** ![Vaevictis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f04885/32.png) [@Vaevictis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vaevictis)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/70 "2015-08-13T04:01:56Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Others: > Since the Romans were fanatics about keeping records, I think we’re gonna have to take their word for it that Jesus did actually come back from the dead, arising from the grave after being crucified. > Phu Cat The only people who claimed that were certain followers of Jesus. The Roman reaction to them was periodic persecution because the Romans rejected those claims. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/71 "2015-08-13T05:01:05Z")
> [@Vaevictis](#): > > This seems problematic on many levels, but just a few quick objections here – how do you know there is not a minimum plateau beyond which how much sex a species has does not make a meaningful difference to the survival of the species? Just a thought here, but is how often members of a species have sex directly correlated to how successful that species is in reproducing itself? Humans seem much more successful than some mammal species that have sex far more frequently --bonobos for example. > > Or take another tack on the same idea, we see a wide range of how often different species have sex. Yet some that don’t do it as often and some that do it much more are both having a lot of success reproducing their genes. > > Finally, how does the enormous amount of reproduction of single cell organisms which have no way of experiencing anything close to what we humans term pleasure fit into this? I would say **The Angry Badger** ’s description is not “problematic” so much as just (usefully) simplistic. Yes, there are many factors influencing whether a given species enjoys sex and to what degree. Species that behave in a reflex way would not gain any evolutionary benefit to feeling pleasurable sensations (or negative ones). And even within species that have the pleasurable sensation, it depends on many factors; as a straight male, I would not enjoy sex with a 90-year old man, for example. But this is all too detailed in responding to an OP that alludes to many misconceptions about evolution. It’s better to start with “Imagine you have horny critters and non-horny critters…”, and once they understand such a scenario, you can move on from there. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/72 "2015-08-13T05:54:26Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Is there anything you have found to be more pleasurable than the sensation experienced during sexual intercourse? […] > Being that this sensation is the latter and that I am a theist, I find it very easy to accept that God wanted to insure His children kept His earth adequately populated. And that’s why childbirth is a quick and painless process that never has any further medical complications. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/73 "2015-08-13T06:34:07Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > Do Christians _really_ think that people are going to read things like the OP and be like “OOooooh you got me! Guess you are right, God did it!” > > I mean, _really_? Kirk Cameron got me wondering with that banana thing, and this OP just pushed me over the edge. Canceling all future Sunday morning sleep-ins and pencilling in church attendance instead. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/74 "2015-08-13T06:53:34Z")
> [@Vaevictis](#): > > The only people who claimed that were certain followers of Jesus. The Roman reaction to them was periodic persecution because the Romans rejected those claims. The Romans, not being Christians, did not persecute people for believing in the wrong type of gods. They might persecute people for stirring up trouble, and not worshiping the Emperor - except for Jews who got a pass until we stirred up trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/75 "2015-08-13T06:58:46Z")
> [@Vaevictis](#): > > This seems problematic on many levels, but just a few quick objections here – how do you know there is not a minimum plateau beyond which how much sex a species has does not make a meaningful difference to the survival of the species? Just a thought here, but is how often members of a species have sex directly correlated to how successful that species is in reproducing itself? Frequency of sex depends a lot on the reproductive strategies of the species. Some have sex once, but have lots of babies. Some have sex relatively frequently but have small litters. Many are interested (females at least) only at reproductively advantageous times. It is hard to know if a female going into heat gets pleasure from sex - certainly there is a release of tension - but this is clearly linked to the pleasure we get from it. > [@](#): > > Humans seem much more successful than some mammal species that have sex far more frequently --bonobos for example. I don’t think sexual frequency has much to do with anything, since we both have sex far, far more often than is necessary to have children. As for humans having less - speak for yourself, bud. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Trucker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecae2f/32.png) [@Trucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trucker)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/76 "2015-08-13T08:00:34Z")
Your argument is too easily rebutted, my friend; The genes that created sexual pleasure won out because the early organisms that derived the most pleasure from sex were the most sexually active. If sex didn’t feel good, then you’d have something that didn’t make evolutionary sense (ie, possible proof of a creator). ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/77 "2015-08-13T08:16:11Z")
If God invented sexual pleasure, amoebas got the short end of the stick. Boo! ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/78 "2015-08-13T11:54:42Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > Is there anything you have found to be more pleasurable than the sensation experienced during sexual intercourse? (I’ve never done drugs.) You should try sex while on drugs. Well, certain drugs. I imagine something like heroin would make you nod off or forget why you’re in bed with that attractive person. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/79 "2015-08-13T11:59:55Z")
> [@GrumpyBunny](#): > > You should try sex while on drugs. Well, certain drugs. I imagine something like heroin would make you nod off or forget why you’re in bed with that attractive person. Yeah, weed was made for sex.🆒 ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668/80 "2015-08-13T12:00:13Z")
> [@Phu\_Cat](#): > > We are still referring to evolution as a theory for good reason. We refer to gravity as a theory as well, but you aren’t typing on the computer while floating around up by your ceiling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-those-that-do-not-believe-in-god/727668.md?page=5)