Too cute. Eight years, too! Awwwww.

[Loony BoB]

Babies can swim

Oh dear God don't tell me you're going to throw your baby in at the deep end of the local pools.

EDIT:[q=Skogs]Also, animals aren't all that discreet about where and in front of whom they, er, 'do it'. You can't discount watching as an important factor in learning the mechanisms involved. In animals (well, mammals anyway), 'sexual play' is also an important fatcor in the development of young animals.[/q]
I don't know about you, but I've never physically seen a bird insert itself into another bird, nor a dog. If you had no idea about sex, and you saw a dog jump on top of another dog, you'd just think it's a dog jumping on top of another dog. You don't go up close and check to see where it's penis is. ...at least, I hope you don't. That's a bit disturbing.

[Shadow Nexus]

Yes, I would agree that they leave you blind to faith. Good point.

O_o

Can you tell me how masturbating makes you an atheist? Because "you give into sensorial pleasures and forget trascendence"?

[Skogs]

I don't know about you, but I've never physically seen a bird insert itself into another bird, nor a dog. If you had no idea about sex, and you saw a dog jump on top of another dog, you'd just think it's a dog jumping on top of another dog. You don't go up close and check to see where it's penis is. ...at least, I hope you don't. That's a bit disturbing.

I think it's safe to say that in 'higher' mammal species, the instinct for sexual behavoiur is reduced. However, animals do learn by mimicking their parents. Even if all the graphic detail wasn't seen, young animals would probably 'figure it out', so to speak, upon trying it themselves, even though the the details were, shall we say, somewhat obscured.

This thread is getting weird...

[War Angel]

Can you tell me how masturbating makes you an atheist?

Because according to the Judaism, and therefore Christianity and Islam, wasting sperm is prohibited. That's why sodomy and fellatio (to the point of ejaculation, anyway) are prohibited as well.

[Shadow Nexus]

Because according to the Judaism, and therefore Christianity and Islam, wasting sperm is prohibited. That's why sodomy and fellatio (to the point of ejaculation, anyway) are prohibited as well.

Wasting? But it generates again afterwards, so it's not like wanking will prevent you from having children. Oh, well, those are ancient rules, so it was a different culture, and I guess it's hard to understand it in today's mentality.

[LH]

It's plain to see (to me anyway) that strict religious codes and beliefs are destructive to quality of life. Just another point for my side, I guess. Only religion can bring about ignorance of this magnitude. :laugh:

[War Angel]

Wasting? But it generates again afterwards, so it's not like wanking will prevent you from having children. Oh, well, those are ancient rules, so it was a different culture, and I guess it's hard to understand it in today's mentality.

Hey, I didn't say it made sense! But, spewing sperm like that is considered wasting it - if released into an egg, it could generate a child. Again, it's pretty dodgy... don't spend too much time thinking 'bout it.

[Shadow Nexus]

Hey, I didn't say it made sense! But, spewing sperm like that is considered wasting it - if released into an egg, it could generate a child. Again, it's pretty dodgy... don't spend too much time thinking 'bout it.

I understand it in some way. Back then, wars and plagues ended with lots of population, so having children was a way to help the things going. Now....the thing is quite the opposite: We have many people.

[War Angel]

We have many people.

And muchos porno.

[Dr Unne]

Again, it's pretty dodgy... don't spend too much time thinking 'bout it. --War Angel

This is the most important thing to remember when trying to understand religion in general.

So far as I know, some ancient peoples believed that you COULD run out of sperm. Many peoples believed that bodily fluids were "life" in some way, that when you leak fluids, you leak your life-force. In ancient Greece, they believed that losing semen made a man lose his manliness in some way. Too much fluid loss would make a man feminine.

Semen is something which, when planted into a fertile woman, would create a new life, and that was a very important thing. Lifespans were short back then, and life was uncertain at all times; procreation was a huge priority, and for many people (Hebrews for example) maintaining the bloodline in the form of producing descendants was the only real form of immortality available. For the Greeks, people actually had a public, civic duty to society to reproduce, to maintain the state, supply the army, supply a workforce. Some early peoples also believed that the semen held a "homunculus", i.e. a completely-formed ultra-miniature human being, which would grow into a baby when placed in a fertile woman.

There was certainly a complete lack of scientific knowledge at that time. These are the eras from which the Bible was produced, and upon which millions of people base their moral code.

[Emerald Aeris]

"Are humans completely lacking in our animal instincts at this point?"

I would say not. Just when people are conditioned from when they're a child to not explore sex in any way, especially for religious reasons, it would override their instincts.

"It's nice to see people so innocent."

How is such extreme ignorance nice? How is not knowing how to have sex innocent? That kind of implies that sex is something wrong. I REALLY don't get that attitude at all. If they didn't know how to go to the bathroom, or dress themselves, would that be nice and innocent too? Sex is a natural part of human existence. I don't think I want to know why you think it's innocent. Sometimes you people scare me.

"I am concerned with the bigger questions concerning human fertility and its rapid demise in the west and Europe."

The reproductive system is very sensitive. More pollutants = less fertility.

"Perhaps it's possible that humans, as the leading sentient species on the planet, are able to transcend basic instincts sometimes?"

Someone who tries to "transcend" intrinsic parts of their humanity is a fool, as far as I'm concerned. Instincts are not inherently bad. Why should we be without lust? Would that be better? Would we be more desirably innocent?

Some people seem to think this is a good thing. I find it disturbing. Ok, and humourous.

"I think it's safe to say that in 'higher' mammal species, the instinct for sexual behavoiur is reduced."

No. The only difference is humans have sentience to counter it. And as you can see, we use it to keep the population down. Oh wait! We don't. But that's a rant for another soapbox.

[Big D]

[q=Emerald Aeris]"Perhaps it's possible that humans, as the leading sentient species on the planet, are able to transcend basic instincts sometimes?"

Someone who tries to "transcend" intrinsic parts of their humanity is a fool, as far as I'm concerned. Instincts are not inherently bad. Why should we be without lust? Would that be better? Would we be more desirably innocent?[/q]Hey, take it easy. What I meant with my statement is that humans are smart enough to avoid going, "hey, I'm feeling an instinctive urge! I'd better do what it says and fornicate with something!"
So if someone's got an idea in their heads, they can easily act on that idea and override instinct. Hell, the instinctive mating urge could be used as an excuse for rape, however we're expected to know better. Our knowledge of right and wrong is what prevents us from acting purely on instinct, knowing that reacting to lust and desire isn't necessarily the right thing to do. Eating, mating and fighting are all instinctive in one way; but our ability to fetter those instincts is a big part of what makes us human. I just reckon that these people, ignorant as they are, don't deserve to be lambasted simply for having been under-educated. They've not harmed anyone; they didn't choose to be ignorant; it's just what they were taught.
Throughout my life, I experience many instinctive urges: the desire to munch on a tasty morsel that presents itself; the desire to beat the snot out of some despicable lowlife; the desire to release sexual tension. Am I a "fool" for choosing not to act on these impulses? I'd say not; arguably my actions are reasonable when looked at in the context of what I know and believe.

[Emerald Aeris]

Transcend in this sense pretty much means to be without. Denying you have instincts is foolish, yes. Not giving into them is not. I wasn't saying we should all do whatever instincts say. Saying we shouldn't be without lust doesn't mean I think we should give into it all the time.

[Dr Unne]

If someone wants to be without lust, it's their choice. It's still as valid a choice as any other, so long as it really is a choice, and not a mistake done through ignorance. The bad thing about the people from the first post isn't that they didn't have sex, it's that they were ignorant of the fact that they should, and that if they'd known, they would have done differently. Consider though a nun who decides to be celibate her whole life; if it makes her happy, then good for her. Instincts are not inherently bad nor inherently good, so far as I'm concerned; they're another influence in life, which can be dealt with like any other influence.

[Emerald Aeris]

You misunderstand. Just because she doesn't act on those instincts doesn't mean they're not there. Not acting on them is fine. Sorry, my point was a bit fuzzy.