goodthief,

Thanks. I also appreciated Dawkins admitting that he was "not" an a seven [absolute atheist]. I would not be suprised if Sells is a 1.0
[Preceieved infallibly?]. Else, if he could be empirically studying the evolution of our posts? [Fits- in with some of his interests. Guess not. Seemingly, not double-blind]

I have held for 15-20 years that whether one a theist or athiest, one needs to concurrently retain the [opposite] belief, as null hypothesis or negative heuristic. Sells, wont engage on this matter, either. [Perhaps, it is a perceived power distance, being aloof thing, for Sells?]

Moreover, while one can come tied in knots applying science versus god to design and creation; history and antroplogy can pretty much explain thed development religionism and the architecture of theocrasia.

The problem with a varied evolving relious history is fitting it in with a doctrinaire denominationalist creed. There are contradictions everywhere. [Polytheism is more social.].

Actually, I feel that Dawkins should have [executive] edited an anthology. At times it is obvious he has strayed a little to far from the kernel of his expertise.

Cheers.

Thanks Oliver. There’s some language in your post I don’t understand, but I’ll reply to what I think your points are.

I can see the contrast between Dawkins’ self-score of <1.0 and Sellick’s 1.0. But, I don't think it's a fair comparison. Sellick scores 1.0 for his starting point - God. Dawkins is <1.0 for atheism, but he would self score at 1.0 on his belief in empiricism. Each scores the same for their respective starting-point - God for Sellick and empiricism for Dawkins.

I too self-score at 1.0 on God. However, after that, I'm happy, and probably duty-bound, to be a little cautious. You know, not overly confident on some particular issues. I think this is necessary, to be realistic and also as a matter of humility.

At that point, I agree with what I think your point is about maintaining a hypothetical grasp of the opposite view – so I can engage in discussion. I hope I have understood you correctly.

I also agree that evolution might come up with an explanation for the development of religious belief. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no God. Evolution might also explain the development of empiricism, but that doesn’t mean empiricism has no merit.

Pax,

goodthief,

Thanks. Sorry if my typing is poor and poorly coordinated with my mind which tends to race.

I don't have Dawkin's "God Delusion with me as I type. I recall him having 1-7 point interval scale with theism on the left pole and atheism on the right pole. Herein be 1 or 7, would be absolutist. Dawkins is a 6.5 [me too, and for 20 years+]. Selleck is entrenched. A 1. Had he lived in 1500s, he would not have accepted that Moses did not have horns based on a new understanding of language. The Church said horns, "therefore it is horns".

With Dawkin's et al. most of the debate is around science versus intelligent design. I see cultural-anthropology and history much more powerful instruments to revisit old beliefs and test/update them [than science]. The Christian Church we see was largely founded by Paul and Nicaea [Creed/Doctrine]. Even if God does exist, would it not be important to learn that in the period Jesus was not seen to be divine and false interpretation was carried forward thorough current era history?

Several fundamental matters on divinity and the godhead can be re-analysed with modern histographical techniques.[Much more was learned for a MRI scan of Tutankamon from an MRI than X-rays].

Cheers

Getting back on topic.........
The major problem with all contributions to this thread is that, although there is widespread agreement that prostitution is immoral, noone has actually produced a valid argument of any sort to justify this assertion.
The best we have is that prostitution might have some udesirable consequences. This, of course, does not consitute any sort of ethical argument as practically every human enterprise can have negative outcomes.
Prostitution is condemned in the Bible but only in the context of apostate cultic practice of other religions. The Hebrews were far more concerned with apostasy than sexual purity.
no-one

Waterboy, I guess the argument could be made that prostitution
is more moral then marrying for the money!

Yabby,

Yes, at least prostitution is honest 'work'.