Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Apropos of nothing, a quick post about quickies

Glommed on to this funny/sad piece at CNN, where it has been determined (scientifically!) that most people take only 3 to 13 minutes for sex. Of course, I see a flaw in their methodology right off that may have skewed results.

Dr. Irwin Goldstein, editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, cited a four-week study of 1,500 couples in 2005 that found the median time for sexual intercourse was 7.3 minutes. (Women in the study were armed with stopwatches.)

Oh yeah. Nothing makes a man feel like James Bond Meets Johnny Wadd Meets Adonis quite like drillin' some chick who's timing you with a stopwatch. Thanks for the "self esteem" boost.


  1. Just proves that men need a man made 4 hour erection pill right?

    Sorcery comes from the Greek word of Pharmachia (φάρμακον) which means drugs it's also where we get todays word pharmacy. I think we all know what the Bible says about sorcery.

  2. Well, the Bible does present rather favorable views of drunken incest and mass rape (Numbers 31: 17-18, 35). Sounds like Lot performed pretty well with both daughters, considering how wasted they got him.

  3. You suck, touché

    If they had stop watches the results may have been the same.

  4. Sorcery comes from the Greek word of Pharmachia (φάρμακον) which means drugs

    Jesus, not this shit again.

    Dan, please understand: some people really can read Greek (and other ancient languages) and when you bloviate ignorantly about etymology we will call you on it.

    I believe this is the second time I have done so since you appeard from the mists last year; the first had something to do with a tortured and not-even-wrong etymology for the word "Satan."

    "Pharmachia" is not a word in ancient Greek. The word for which you vainly search is actually "pharmakeia," the primary meaning of which deals with medicines and tinctures.

    In fact, pretty much all the words that start with the root "pharm-" deal primarily with medicine. A few have secondary uses to refer to witchcraft or potioncraft, but they are used thusly far more rarely. Usually, it should be noted, posions and witchcraft are mentioned rather than sorcery, which tends to connote more metaphysical abilities. "Pharmakeuo" is an exception; one of its secondary uses is "to enchant or use sorcery."

    "Sorcery" has no root in Greek and certainly does not "come from the Greek word of Pharmachia." "Sorcery" comes entirely from Latin, not Greek.

    I know, I know, they're both ancient so they must just be the same thing anyway. Italy is close to Greece, isn't it?

    Oh wait, that's not at all true.

    The only part you got right was when you said "φάρμακον" means "drugs." Unfortunately, "pharmachia," apart from not existing at all, is not the English transliteration of "φάρμακον." Check your copy-pastes more carefully. When someone like me comes along and can actually read the Greek, it makes you look really silly. You can't pretend to knowledge you don't have forever; assuming everyone else is ignorant really only shows your own intellectual laziness. Seriously, I almost immediately knew you were pulling that totally out of your ass based just on that incorrect transliteration. It betrays not only ignorance, but arrogance: "Nobody will find me out! I've outsmarted them!"

    "φάρμακον" transliterates to "pharmakon," the general root for all the other "pharm-" words, which does, in fact, mean "drugs" or "medicines."

    That's why a pharmacist sells pills and not Dungeons and Dragons artifacts.

    Imagine, if you will, trying to tell us that "parapluie" is French for "snowshoe" in an effort to impress someone with your knowledge and then a Frenchman comes through and says "Non, Monsieur, that means 'umbrella.'"

    That's about how stupid you look right now.

    So do us a favor and shut the hell up about language. You can hardly use English correctly, for fuck's sake.

  5. As they say, the three little words no man wants to hear while making love are "was that it?"

  6. For the record, I won't be reading Dan's posts or responding to them - from this point on. If he'd like to have an actual conversation, I'd consider that (via e-mail or on a proper message board), but I'm weary.

    He doesn't have conversations, he waits for his turn to be contrary. He doesn't comprehend the points of the discussion, he just views them through the apologetic lens and rationalizes them away with his poisoned mind.

    He thinks he's far smarter than he is, which is a serious problem when surrounded by people who can - and will - demonstrate why his comments are constantly wrong.

    He has delusions of adequacy.

    ...and he's not worth my time.

  7. Well Matt, we've known that about Dan for around a year now. But the other commenters voted to let him stay and keep commenting, so yeah, they can take him on if they like. Depending on what kind of mood I'm in during a given day, I either ignore him or slap him down, both of which are about equally easy.

  8. Ya know, I do this a lot. If anyone really realized just how many e-mail conversations I've had with theists of all stripes over the past 3 years, they'd probably stage an intervention.

    Few have been as frustrating as Dan. It's usually possible to find some common ground or starting point that will, if nothing else, make it clear where we disagree.

    Russell put together a fairly good explanation of why quoting Bible verses doesn't help Dan's case and Dan essentially claims that he already knows this, but doesn't care, because HE believes that it's important, time-critical and true.

    Seeing this, the reasonable person would identify that this is a critical point of disagreement and that the only way to reconcile this is for Dan to demonstrate why WE should accept his belief that the messages is important, time-critical and true.

    Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen - especially when it's not even being attempted.

    Under other circumstances, I'd actually be willing to move this issue over to the Iron Chariots forum as an actual debate - but Dan isn't equipped for that. He believes what he believes and is unwilling or unable to provide a justification sufficient to convince others.

    One of my newest friends is a Baptist minister at a local church. He e-mailed the show in an attempt to convince me - without appeals to Biblical authority - of the existence of God. He's a MUCH better apologist than Dan, not because he knows more arguments but because he actually bothers to think about what he's saying and what I'm saying.

    It's a REAL conversation and we're actually making headway. He'd certainly like to save my soul and I'd certainly like to help him embrace reality - but we're both satisfied if the only change is that we both understand each other better.

    When I was a Christian, even when I was at my most devout, seriously interested in saving people's souls - never was I was as obtuse, obstinate, condescending or opposed to conversation as Dan is.

    I have a number of Christian friends and theistic friends and none of them are like that.

    Maybe none of them are as "sold out" for Jesus as Dan. Maybe they're not as special, touched, enlightened or as guided by the Holy Spirit. But mostly, I think they're interested in something other than just waiting for their turn to preach.


  9. I've had conversations with Christians both here and in person that I've thoroughly enjoyed. Even Rhology — despite the fact he frequently makes any number of common mistakes in his arguments and tends to lose his temper quickly — is more pleasant to talk to than Dan. And I was quite appreciating the brief back and forth we were having with "Johannes de Silentio" not long ago. The key is that when you talk to a smart Christian as opposed to a dumb one, they know they're talking to someone coming from a very different place and make an effort to communicate differently than they would with their fellow believers. Christians who ask questions — sincere and not indignant and petulant ones, which is what you usually get from fundies — are the most enjoyable to talk to, especially when they're seriously trying to come to grips with understanding why someone would be atheist.

    Dan just doesn't get a number of extremely basic points, and it's clearly due to deficiencies in his education. Hell, all the way back to high school I was learning and engaging in forensic debate, so I'm academically trained to argue, more or less. But even a rank amateur ought to know that if you're going to ground your argument in a specific premise, and your opponent is not yet even convinced of the premise, then you must establish the validity of the premise first before using it as a springboard for any further argument.

    Dan just doesn't understand this. And unlike Russell's recent comment suggesting that perhaps Dan doesn't "really care whether people burn in hell or not; [he] just want[s] to put on a good show in order to trick god into THINKING [he] tried to save people" — which, I think, gives Dan credit for a level of sophistication he won't have if he lives to be 100 — I put Dan's failings here down to mere incompetence. Dan is used to a lifetime of listening to preachers. Preachers stand at pulpits and say stuff and the congregation nods and goes "ay-men" at appropriate times. Dan thinks all he needs to do is preach the way he's been preached to, and if he does it enough he'll finally break through our defensive atheistical stubbornness and all at once, the "ay-mens" will pour from us like flood waters from a sluice gate.

    But that kind of communication won't work here. Dan may even get this at some primal level. But he keeps doing it all the same, because he only has the one way he knows to communicate, and either can't be bothered or (and I incline toward this opinion) just hasn't got the tools between his ears to learn to communicate more effectively.

  10. MattD & Martin,

    You both crack me up and my jaw hurts, sometimes I come for the entertainment like watching monkeys sling poo in the zoo.

    Watch out, Martin is throwing yesterdays lunch, again.

    Oh and Akusai, I stand corrected. Instead of Pharmakeia I used the spelling Pharmachia. Otherwise you agree. Your name calling rant was valid? Remind me not to spill milk in your house, I actually may get shot for that offense. Thanks I stand corrected.

    I will close with your favorite Bible verse (no way, is he going to do it again?)

    1 Corinthians 2:1-5

    And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

    For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

    And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

    And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

    That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

    Oh no he di'ent, Kirk, out

  11. See what I mean? You just kind of have to feel sorry for the guy. Or you would, if it weren't for the fact that he should have grown up decades ago. This is what religion does to the mind, gang. Kind of like what salt does to a slug.

  12. And now, your last post as seen through the eyes of an atheist.

    MattD & Martin,
    [Irrelevant insults that will hopefully leave the lurkers chortling]

    Oh and Akusai, I stand corrected. Instead of Pharmakeia I used the spelling Pharmachia. Otherwise you agree. Your name calling rant was valid? Remind me not to spill milk in your house, I actually may get shot for that offense. Thanks I stand corrected.

    I will close with your favorite Bible verse (no way, is he going to do it again?)

    blah blah 2:1-5

    blah blah blah

    blah blah blah blah

    blah blah blah blah blah

    blah blah blee blah

    blah blah blah blah blah bluh blee blah bloo blah blah

    Oh no he di'ent, Kirk, out

    Thanks, Dan. I sure do feel much closer to being saved than I was before I read that.

  13. Unfortunately, I'm starting to come around to your point of view, Martin. I thought I might actually prompt some useful discussion earlier, but now Dan just posts exactly the same stuff with sardonic meta-comments included before the Bible quotes.

  14. "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power"

    Dan, your demonstration of power is about as impressive as someone lighting a sparkler on the 4th of July.

  15. ...and having it turn out to be a dud.

  16. My kids love those sparklers, good clean fun for the whole family.

  17. What a stupid study and conclusion. Sure, INTERCOURSE can be brief, but any man who thinks he's jumping into a woman's bed gonna be done in less than fifteen minutes is dreaming. Just like a good meal, where the main course is not all there is, a good session of mattress callisthenics needs more than insert tab A into slot b.

  18. Martin:

    See what I mean? You just kind of have to feel sorry for the guy.

    I was about to ask "what guy?" when Kazim went and posted the edited version of Dan's post. He's harder to ignore when my friends quote and paraphrase him. :)

    And Gwenny:

    Oh so true. Sometimes there's a lot of work to be done before 'Tab A' gets anywhere near 'Slot B'...sometimes you have to put on the hard hat and clock in a little over-time.

    Anyone who takes a stopwatch to bed is missing the point. Personally, I always roll over, look at the clock and say something like "Wow..that was a great 4 hours" even if it was really only 7 minutes. If you've done your job, they should be significantly bewildered that they're unable to spot the inconsistency - and you won't really be lying, because you'll be so tapped out you're lucky to remember your name, let alone what time you "started".


  19. Instead of Pharmakeia I used the spelling Pharmachia.

    Ah, Dan completely missed the point.

    Again, "pharmachia" is not at all the same as "pharmakeia." The transliteration of "pharmachia" is "φαρμάχια," while the transliteration of "pharmakeia" is "φαρμακέια." The accent isn't even in the same place.

    And neither of them is "φάρμακον."

    Additionally, again, "sorcerey" has no Greek root.

    It's clear to everyone else that you were spewing a fountain of shit from that ass you call your brain. Stop trying to pretend we just said the same thing when you were clearly wrong on multiple levels.

    Otherwise you agree.

    No, not at all.

    And you just made yourself look dumber.

    Why do I even bother?

  20. pharmakeia is roughly equivalent to witchcraft, correct. Isn't that where the word sorcery came from? KJV translators used the word sorcery for the greek word pharmakeia. So all you potheads out there that think they are going to Heaven better read Rev 21:8 again.

  21. pharmakeia is roughly equivalent to witchcraft, correct.

    Only in its secondary definition. And it can also easily mean "poisoning," but I don't see you going on about how all drugs are poisonous. So no, you weren't really correct.

    The primary and secondary definitions of words, in case you forgot, are multiple, different, meanings for the word that are not necessarily related to each other. That "pharmakeia" can be used to mean both "medicine" and "witchcraft" does not mean that the two are related.

    Quick example off the top of my head: "rock" as in a stone and "rock" as in rock music. The latter is not a form of caveman music involving a granite drumset.

    Isn't that where the word sorcery came from?

    No, asshole, "sorcery" came from the Latin word "sors," meaning "fate" or "fortune" as a sorcerer (or sorceress) is generally perceived as one who can influence those forces. It has zero etymological ties to Greek. None.

    It also bears mention that "witchcraft" and "sorcery" have different definitions and different connotations. Trying to tie to two together because "They both us magic!" is like pretending that "pharmachia," "pharmakeia," and "pharmakon" are the same word. Hey, wait a minute...

    Just on the face of it, how the hell does "pharmakeia" in any way lead to the word "sorcery?" They're nothing like each other.

    Stop pretending to knowledge you don't have when you're obviously just parroting something you read or something somebody told you once.

    Stop trying to salvage yourself from the bowels of an Epic Fail.

  22. So, let me get this straight (no pun intended):

    You gentlemen are arguing about... well... *arguing* in response to a post lamenting how any man who could keep it going for *10 minutes* would be a sexual titan when there's a stopwatch-toting "chick" tolerating your ridiculousness. I'd say you're fighters, not lovers... (cf, "drilling some chick.")

    In any case, I enjoy the blog.

    Thanks for the laugh.

  23. Actually, I'm arguing in response to Dan Marvin's delusions of knowledge.

    I have a lot of useless knowledge that rarely has a chance to come out, and he poked my Ancient Greek beehive, so to speak.

  24. So, does "poking" count as talking about the actual topic of quickies?

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Please do continue to rail against the unseen.

    In the end, being atheist means never getting to say "I told you so."

  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. Here's the thing. You don't need to know Greek. You don't even need to know how to read the Greek alphabet. All you have to do is look at the words, in English.

    How can you believe that the English word "sorcery" comes from a Greek word that was something like "pharmakon" or "pharmakia" or whatever?

    If I told you that "sorcery" comes from the Albanian word "txlbrok," would that look any more suspicious?

  27. This comment has been removed by the author.


PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.