It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Your blanket statement of how all women in porn are victims do nothing but belittle women for their personal choices.
Lustful eyes is simply a biological signal to the brain encouraging reproduction. there is a reason it feels good
So your argument from nature excuses sexual objectification? And besides what you describe as lust is actually attraction. Lust is passion without reason, as opposed to love which is passion cultivated through reason and virtue.
I am a liar...a hypocrite.
To say some people in it are victims is a view from the 70s when the industry was just starting to take off and not overly monitored. Its a dated view that holds little reality towards today.
They -have- to consent, they have to fill out forms and those forms must be filed in accordance with law.
Just because you watch a video of actors pretending to be used
Passion always has a reason.
In regards to lust, it is a biological attraction and desire.
if someone is watching a cooking show, the viewer isn't wanting the chef's view on financial management
originally posted by: Openeye
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
The video made me laugh lol. Though I have issues with it (devils advocate mode on ). First off the personal relationship between man and God is immediately framed as direct link to undisputed truth, while some religions may claim this...I never did...whats to say that the relationship between God and man is not perfect, but flawed due to the reality of human nature and its capacity to conform to social pressures and result to violence.
Secondly the point is raised that their cultures influenced their belief systems, well of course they did, how is this an argument against the concept of God? Religions in modern society despite being formed in specific geographic borders are now international, and If you look at all religions and compare their philosophies, all of them conform in some some way to the golden rule. They do so in many other areas as well mostly in areas concerning virtue (e.g. prudence, temperance, humility, etc) . Who's to say that God's influence and or message is not felt through command and conformity, but through the simple experience of living and gaining knowledge through those experiences.
It seems evident to me that the conclusions we have reached are not the product of religious conformity but by mans introspective conflict with its own nature.
The last point the atheist in the video makes is that if God had a message to human beings why is it so confusing given that he is a perfect being. Perhaps God's influence is indistinguishable from reason, and given what I posit in the first paragraph of my response to your post, that would mean that God's message (if it could even be called that) was never intended to be flawlessly interpreted or received, but instead to be discovered through reason and self knowledge. The idea that God created a perfect is obviously wrong, because the world is not perfect. So how is this argument anything other than one against dogma?
I know this video is satire but I must be candid here...most YouTube atheists are asses. Thunderf00t, TAA, Dusty, most all of them are bigots who hate religious people.