Evidence Against Masturbation

[midniterider]

evidence can be found later to change an outcome. but my point is in specific moments where the evidence isn't there how do u find truth? just because evidence isn't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

is there another tool to detect truth when evidence is absent? otherwise a serial killer is not a killer until there is evidence so as long as the evidence never shows up he is a free man and so why rely on evidence solely. when if it can't be found it's useless and murderers go free and innocent people are punished.

 

the bible says the Hittite civilization exists scientists said it didn't only to find out later the bible was telling the truth. they called it a book of fables yet it made scientists eat their own words.

 

evidence is powerful its helpful its good in many ways but im saying when there is a lack thereof it doesn't mesn s scenario is false you can say u won't believe without evidence but non belief doesn't erase existence and if someone kill ur family member and killer never found are u to say ur family didn't actually die because there no evidence of the killer? im not talking legally im saying in reality why deny it just because evidence isn't there?

 

I dont spend my days on a search for truth. I just enjoy life moment by moment.

[midniterider]

evidence can be found later to change an outcome. but my point is in specific moments where the evidence isn't there how do u find truth? just because evidence isn't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

is there another tool to detect truth when evidence is absent? otherwise a serial killer is not a killer until there is evidence so as long as the evidence never shows up he is a free man and so why rely on evidence solely. when if it can't be found it's useless and murderers go free and innocent people are punished.

 

the bible says the Hittite civilization exists scientists said it didn't only to find out later the bible was telling the truth. they called it a book of fables yet it made scientists eat their own words.

 

evidence is powerful its helpful its good in many ways but im saying when there is a lack thereof it doesn't mesn s scenario is false you can say u won't believe without evidence but non belief doesn't erase existence and if someone kill ur family member and killer never found are u to say ur family didn't actually die because there no evidence of the killer? im not talking legally im saying in reality why deny it just because evidence isn't there?

 

 Why deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence? Just because there is no evidence to prove his existence does not mean he doesn't exist. Evidence could appear later. Would you want to miss out on the stripper factory and beer volcano ? I know I wouldn't.

[Pantophobia]

<------

[bdp]

if someone kill ur family member and killer never found are u to say ur family didn't actually die because there no evidence of the killer?

 

This is asinine.

[creative]

evidence can be found later to change an outcome. but my point is in specific moments where the evidence isn't there how do u find truth? just because evidence isn't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

is there another tool to detect truth when evidence is absent? otherwise a serial killer is not a killer until there is evidence so as long as the evidence never shows up he is a free man and so why rely on evidence solely. when if it can't be found it's useless and murderers go free and innocent people are punished.

 

the bible says the Hittite civilization exists scientists said it didn't only to find out later the bible was telling the truth. they called it a book of fables yet it made scientists eat their own words.

 

evidence is powerful its helpful its good in many ways but im saying when there is a lack thereof it doesn't mesn s scenario is false you can say u won't believe without evidence but non belief doesn't erase existence and if someone kill ur family member and killer never found are u to say ur family didn't actually die because there no evidence of the killer? im not talking legally im saying in reality why deny it just because evidence isn't there?

There is evidence, common sense, logic, probability etc.

 

You dont just validate something based on evidence or the lack there off.

 

For example: Do flying pink unicorns with magical powers exist?

Just because there is no evidence proving that pink flying unicorns dont exist does that mean they exist or that its remotely likely that they do. Would you have good reason to believe they exist?

Anyone with some common sense would believe that pink flying unicorns with magical powers dont exist. Unless there is some evidence to support it. For example: are there horses that fly? have we found any person or animal with magical powers? has anyone ever seen a pink horse? are there any other animals who have evolved in such a weird way? etc...

 

It all comes down to common sense.

If i claim that i have a green tree in front of my house people would just believe it and not demand evidence (green trees exist. and many green trees have been found in front of houses).

However if i would claim i have a pink flying unicorn in my garden, you would be retarded to believe my without any evidence.

[Guest Marty]

 

the bible says the Hittite civilization exists scientists said it didn't only to find out later the bible was telling the truth. they called it a book of fables yet it made scientists eat their own words.

 

 

And Homer mentioned the city of Troy in the Iliad and nobody believed that place existed until they found it a few years ago, so using your logic the ancient Greek gods are also true?

 

The bible is a collection of Bronze Age fables.  The fact they mention cities, kings, and real people who we know actually existed goes nowhere to prove the dead can rise out of their graves and preach to people, or that a donkey or snake can talk, that whales are fish, that the earth is immovable and flat, etc etc.  

 

The bible does get a few things right.  But it gets far more drastically wrong.  It contains no information that was not already available to the desert nomads of the Bronze Age.  No mention of washing with soap and water, no mention of germ theory, etc.  In fact what the bible gets wrong is so far off the mark that its errors are proof it is from the minds of pre-scientific nomadic men and not from a god or deity.  

[pawn]

 

 

 

the bible says the Hittite civilization exists scientists said it didn't only to find out later the bible was telling the truth. they called it a book of fables yet it made scientists eat their own words.

 

And Homer mentioned the city of Troy in the Iliad and nobody believed that place existed until they found it a few years ago, so using your logic the ancient Greek gods are also true?

 

The bible is a collection of Bronze Age fables. The fact they mention cities, kings, and real people who we know actually existed goes nowhere to prove the dead can rise out of their graves and preach to people, or that a donkey or snake can talk, that whales are fish, that the earth is immovable and flat, etc etc.

 

The bible does get a few things right. But it gets far more drastically wrong. It contains no information that was not already available to the desert nomads of the Bronze Age. No mention of washing with soap and water, no mention of germ theory, etc. In fact what the bible gets wrong is so far off the mark that its errors are proof it is from the minds of pre-scientific nomadic men and not from a god or deity.

Logic. Reason. Things the Bronze Age desert nomads lacked, and instead attributed everything to supernatural powers.

[amateur]

I have become saddened by all this talk of Homer and Hittites and cereal killers and pink uniforms.

 

Let us return to the topic of masturbation.

 

True Fact:  In the right setting and in the proper mood, if I cross my legs and squeeze my thighs I can achieve orgasm WITH NO HANDS OR EXTERNAL DEVICES!!!

 

Being a woman rocks!

[bdp]

I have become saddened by all this talk of Homer and Hittites and cereal killers and pink uniforms.

 

Let us return to the topic of masturbation.

 

True Fact:  In the right setting and in the proper mood, if I cross my legs and squeeze my thighs I can achieve orgasm WITH NO HANDS OR EXTERNAL DEVICES!!!

 

Being a woman rocks!

 

Ever hear about the women who worked in sewing factories at the turn of the 19th century?  The machines worked by treadles which the women pumped with their feet - I'm sure you can guess where this is leading. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I have become saddened by all this talk of Homer and Hittites and cereal killers and pink uniforms.

 

Let us return to the topic of masturbation.

 

True Fact:  In the right setting and in the proper mood, if I cross my legs and squeeze my thighs I can achieve orgasm WITH NO HANDS OR EXTERNAL DEVICES!!!

 

Being a woman rocks!

 

Amateur, some of the things you say are just so damn sexy, it puts me into the mood just reading them.

[amateur]

So two nuns are riding bikes down a street.  The first nun says to the second nun, "I've never come this way before!"

 

The second nun says, "Yes!  Cobblestones!"

[amateur]

 

I have become saddened by all this talk of Homer and Hittites and cereal killers and pink uniforms.

 

Let us return to the topic of masturbation.

 

True Fact:  In the right setting and in the proper mood, if I cross my legs and squeeze my thighs I can achieve orgasm WITH NO HANDS OR EXTERNAL DEVICES!!!

 

Being a woman rocks!

 

Amateur, some of the things you say are just so damn sexy, it puts me into the mood just reading them.

 

Thank you!  I actually have to edit most of the things I want to say.  Since I'm happily married again, I try to control myself.

[Ravenstar]

lol never seen so many master debaters your good at what you do.So good in fact that perhaps u can help me understand if we dont believe anything without evidence does that mean a murderer can kill someone but as long as there no evidence for it this means the crime wasn't committed that he didn't do it? vise versa why innocent people are put in jail for lack of evidence? why is it that in court defense and prosecution look at exactly the same piece of evidence but they yet their logical conclusions are led in two different directions? how in those instances evidence has helped anyone?

That's exactly what it means, which is why many cases get thrown out of court. You can't convict someone on a 'feeling'... you HAVE to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty, and that requires evidence. People are presumed innocent... it protects all of us from unfounded accusations. Especially in a murder case. 

 

It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed, it means the evidence isn't enough to convict any particular person.

 

When are innocent people put in jail for a lack of evidence? 

 

Prosecutors are looking at the evidence to convict, defenders are looking for the evidence to establish innocence... it's the same evidence though - then the case is presented from the two viewpoint and a Judge, or a Jury of Peers weighs the evidence and comes to a conclusion. You don't know much about law.

 

That said, it isn't quite as cut and dried as science. Law is a very complex and slippery thing which has more to do with interpretation than science does.

[amateur]

deleted by amateur

[sdelsolray]

lol never seen so many master debaters your good at what you do.So good in fact that perhaps u can help me understand if we dont believe anything without evidence does that mean a murderer can kill someone but as long as there no evidence for it this means the crime wasn't committed that he didn't do it?

…

No, it doesn't mean that at all.  A murder can occur and there may be no relevant evidence which allows you or me to conclude that the murder occurred.  The murder still happened, but to outside observers, such as you or me, all we can say is, "I don't know."

 

As a more mundane example, say a particular small asteroid collided with another small asteroid out in the Asteroid Belt, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.  Neither you or I have at our disposal relevant empirical evidence that this happened.  Yet it still happened.

 

 

…

vise versa why innocent people are put in jail for lack of evidence?

…

 

 

This is not supposed to happen in our (USA) criminal justice system.  The fact that it does happen is more a matter of flaws and mistakes being made within that system.

 

…

why is it that in court defense and prosecution look at exactly the same piece of evidence but they yet their logical conclusions are led in two different directions? how in those instances evidence has helped anyone?

SOmetimes, evidence can be interpreted in different ways.  The inferences drawn can be different.  For example, you arrive home and find your cat lapping up milk from a carton of milk that has fallen off the counter onto the floor.  Your dog is standing nearby wagging his tail.  One inference is that the cat knocked the milk off the counter.  A second inference is that the dog did it.  A rational conclusion would be, "It is most likely that either the cat or the dog did it."

 

Don't be afraid to say, "I don't know."

 

[sdelsolray]

…the bible says the Hittite civilization exists scientists said it didn't only to find out later the bible was telling the truth. they called it a book of fables yet it made scientists eat their own words.

…

Misrepresentations and hyperbole.

 

Scientists (specifically, archeologists and anthropologists) never said the Hittites did not exist.  They simply had no evidence to conclude they did exist.  Now they do.

 

Please provide relevant empirical evidence that these "scientists" (i) claimed the Bible is a book of fables and (ii) that they specifically called the particular reference to the Hittites in the Bible a fable.  Don't quote some creationist website.  Name the scientists and provide direct reference to their statements.

 

From your questions, it appears that you are investigating your own religious faith, and what that means.  "Religious Faith", at least according to the Bible, is wishful thinking and that wishful thinking is evidence of unseen things (such as sky fairies, talking animals, global flood, miracles, etc.).  However, wishful thinking is not relevant empirical evidence of unseen things.  It is merely wishful thinking.

 

Thus, for example, take the global flood, a claim that exists in the Bible.  Your hope, wishful thinking or mere belief that it happened is not evidence that it happened.  There exists significant relevant empirical evidence that a global flood did not occur, at least in the past 500 million years or so.  You are free to research this evidence and reach your own conclusions.  I encourage you to do so.

[Ouroboros]

evidence can be found later to change an outcome. but my point is in specific moments where the evidence isn't there how do u find truth? just because evidence isn't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

is there another tool to detect truth when evidence is absent? otherwise a serial killer is not a killer until there is evidence so as long as the evidence never shows up he is a free man and so why rely on evidence solely. when if it can't be found it's useless and murderers go free and innocent people are punished.

Innocent until proven guilty. The court of law only tests evidence and being legally guilty or innocent does not mean a person did or didn't do something. A court only tests if it can be proven that a person did it. If it can't, he's considered innocent in the eyes of the law. There's a difference between what justice can see and do and what is really true in life.

[Geezer]

I am taking the liberty to paraphrase a point that 1AcceptingAThiest1 made, or eluded too, in a couple of thoughts he posted.

 

This is what I’m interrpreting as his basic premise. I think he is saying that lack of evidence isn’t evidence of anything and I agree that is true. That said, as that premise relates to Jesus and the gospels, someone who supposedly had a large following, performed numerous miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, and also rose from the dead himself but left absolutely no footprint anywhere in the annals of secular history is strong circumstantial evidence that the gospels are based on myth rather than historical events.

 

I think it is reasonable to conclude that it would be virtually impossible for such events to have taken place and not one single person ever recorded anything about this man or these events outside the gospels. In this particular case I think lack of evidence is in fact a form of evidence that these events didn’t happen and this man never existed in the flesh.

[sdelsolray]

The lack of evidence can actually demonstrate a negative claim.

 

For example, the negative claim, "There is no dragon in my living room", can be supported by visiting the living room, with others, with camera, etc., to demonstrate that the claim is correct.

 

The negative claim, "There is no dragon in my house", is a bit more difficult but can be supported with a larger group of people, cameras, etc.

 

The negative claim, "There is no dragon on the planet Earth", is quite more difficult but theoretically, at least, it could be supported with a large enough group of people, cameras, etc.

 

The negative claim, "There is no dragon in the Milky Way galaxy", would be impossible to support with complete and direct empirical evidence.

[Pantophobia]

 

 

so how do I present evidence that everyman in in the world has masturbated?

 

Why in the name of fucking hell would you want or need to? Seriously, why are Christians so fucking invested in other people's sex lives? 

 

 

 

How many of single men with working arms and fingers have masturbated today?

'Cos sex is all about men, not women. Women *never* masturbate.

 

That reminds me. I need to put batteries on the shopping list. 

[midniterider]

I have become saddened by all this talk of Homer and Hittites and cereal killers and pink uniforms.

 

Let us return to the topic of masturbation.

 

True Fact:  In the right setting and in the proper mood, if I cross my legs and squeeze my thighs I can achieve orgasm WITH NO HANDS OR EXTERNAL DEVICES!!!

 

Being a woman rocks!

 

You so horrrrrny. :-)

[midniterider]

Have you masturbated in the name of Jesus today? No? Well get busy. :-)

[chrisstavrous]

What was it they say about this subject, 10% of all men admit they masturbate, the other 90% are liars.

[Ralet]

to the OT: what is the point and why did you choose masturbation as an example?

If you want to say that lack of evidence is not a proof then you might be right, but that holds for every belief, statement and hypothesis. you can not proof that god is evil or a woman,that any other religion is true, that aliens are real or that i am a deity. There might be an infinite-small probability that the bible is true, but why should somebody build his life on such absurd claims? 

[mwc]

     You could try to survey all 3 billion or so men to see if they've yanked it (they might tell you the truth).  Or you could take a statistical sample so you don't have to ask all of them (there is still the problem of truth).

 

     Go ahead and try that with any god(s).  You'll never get an answer for any question.  Ever.  If you straight up ask a god if they exist and expect a simple yes or no answer from that god as a reply you just will not get it.

 

     So you can go to the source and get an answer on your masturbation question but you cannot do the same for a god question.  So even if all the men lie I can at least have an answer.  I won't even get a lie from a god.

 

     And, just an aside, but the Biblical Hittites aren't necessarily the same as the ancient group known as the Hittites.

 

          mwc