atheism

[shoewindow3000]

Your missing the point. We are talking about how belief systems can in effect others. Atheism is NOT a belief system.

It is.

You may proudly say, “atheists don’t believe in God,” whereas most people would say, “atheists believe in no God.”

Now, if what you are saying is true(that atheism is not a belief), then atheism is not a noble intellectual or philosophical stance- it’s nothing more than a reaction to what others believe! (At least if you call it a belief, it has a little dignity!)

To change the subject…

I think that any sane and logical person, even if having no previous knowledge of any god/gods, can come to the conclusion of a “first cause.” I know atheists look at the Big Bang and still resist the idea of a first cause, but I think that the most likely answer to a question is usually the right answer.
(Did you also know that the man who first proposed the idea was Georges Lemaître, a physicist/priest?)

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**It is.

You may proudly say, “atheists don’t believe in God,” whereas most people would say, “atheists believe in no God.”

Now, if what you are saying is true(that atheism is not a belief), then atheism is not a noble intellectual or philosophical stance- it’s nothing more than a reaction to what others believe! (At least if you call it a belief, it has a little dignity!)
**
**
“it’s nothing more than a reaction to what others believe!”** Exactly

To change the subject…
**
I think that any sane and logical person, even if having no previous knowledge of any god/gods, can come to the conclusion of a “first cause.”**

Really and what empirical evidence do you base this on, or do you subscribe to it because it fits the pattern as required by the human mindset.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I admit that 90% effectiveness is not good enough when in a highly afftected area, furthermore abstinence and fidelity are 100% effective. Moreover, it matters because people are dying and/or transmitting this disease to others. God bless.

Actually its alot higher than 90 but that is not the point. You are missing one key word, **consenting **. If to consenting adults want to have sex, heck even a married couple. Lets say a married couple (20 years) use condom as a form of birth control. What on earth business is that of yours.

 

[shoewindow3000]

**It is.

You may proudly say, “atheists don’t believe in God,” whereas most people would say, “atheists believe** in no God.”

Now, if what you are saying is true(that atheism is not a belief), then atheism is not a noble intellectual or philosophical stance- it’s nothing more than a reaction to what others believe! (At least if you call it a belief, it has a little dignity!)

**
“it’s nothing more than a reaction** to what others believe!” Exactly

To change the subject…
**
I think that any sane and logical person, even if having no** previous knowledge of any god/gods, can come to the conclusion of a “first cause.”

Really and what empirical evidence do you base this on, or do you subscribe to it because it fits the pattern as required by the human mindset.

The “empirical evidence” I base it on is existence! Cause and effect!I base it on is the fact that I am really sitting here,existing in this very real universe, talking to you, a very real person, over the very real internet!
Have you ever heard of something called "cause and effect"?

If I see a ball rolling, I assume that it was thrown/pushed/bumped. I don’t assume that it “moved itself.” Something caused it to move.
Unlike you (apparently), I believe in cause and effect. (Notice how I use the word believe:thumbsup

According to you, did space, time, matter, and energy just create themselves? Who knows, maybe I wasn’t really born from my mother’s womb; maybe I pulled myself into existence!

Yeah, that makes sense…

Can you give an answer as to what caused the Big Bang? No? Didn’t think so!!!

Now, the way I see it, the only answer would have to be an uncreated something. Why, you may ask? Well, here is why.

If you say something created the universe, what created that something? The only thing to assume is that something or someone uncreated created our universe…
otherwise, you would have an unending paradox of sorts.

And if this something or someone is uncreated, that means that this creator exists in eternity. Why? Simple-it has no beginning-it is uncreated.

I am sorry to ramble on!

 

[josie_L]

Actually its alot higher than 90 but that is not the point. You are missing one key word, **consenting **. If to consenting adults want to have sex, heck even a married couple. Lets say a married couple (20 years) use condom as a form of birth control. What on earth business is that of yours.

Charlie, you do realize that what I believe and what the CC states is only binding on Catholics. So if you’re not a Catholic, what the heck are you talking about? Furthermore, the 90% was quoted by the U.N. on how effective condoms are in blocking diseases, so from my standpoint, that’s not safe sex. God bless.

 

[yankee_doodle]

But how prevelant are these tribal customs (by the way many Africans are converting to the Catholic faith)? The taboo is understandable but the rest seems a little more isolated in practice, no? God bless.

p.s. I have a sociology degree.

These practices are very prevalent (they are practiced by a majority of Africans). The practices I noted previously are only the tip of the iceberg. Other dangerous practices include self-mutilation (for various reasons), which is also obviously a dangerous practice (since it typically involves exposure to blood without using protective measures).

The bottom line is sustained progress will only come to Africa when there is sustained progress in Africa (and that doesn’t mean replacing one set of ancient mythological customs with another). Secular sex education, religious indoctrination, or even providing food and medical services will never do much more than nominally improve conditions in Africa. Until these folks have real jobs to go to, real schools to send their children to, real stores to shop in, a real infrastructure (roads, bridges, water delivery and sewage systems, etc.), a sound court system, professional law enforcement, etc. they will not likely change. This is the same pattern with all cultures and societies. Primitive indigenous customs are always the default until a real alternative presents itself; which is robust enough to promote real social evolution.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**The “empirical evidence” I base it on is existence! Cause and effect!I base it on is the fact that I am really sitting here,existing in this very real universe, talking to you, a very real person, over the very real internet!
Have you ever heard of something called "cause and effect"?

If I see a ball rolling, I assume that it was thrown/pushed/bumped. I don’t assume that it “moved itself.” Something caused it to move.
Unlike you (apparently), I believe in cause and effect. (Notice how I use the word believe:thumbsup

According to you, did space, time, matter, and energy just create themselves? Who knows, maybe I wasn’t really born from my mother’s womb; maybe I pulled myself into existence!

Yeah, that makes sense…
**

That is not empirical evidence. Anyway…

No what is actually happening is you are seeing the ball moving then concluding god did it.

At this point in time our state of knowledge surrounding the origin of the universe is UNKNOWN!!!

So imagine we both lived 10000 years ago and we felt the earth shake then saw a landslide.

We would both wonder what cause it. You would say well…

“Cause and effect!I base it on is the fact that I am really sitting here,existing in this very real universe…”
"According to you, did space, time, matter, and energy just create themselves? Who knows, maybe I wasn’t really born from my mother’s womb; maybe I pulled myself into existence!

Yeah, that makes sense…"…

Therefore god made the landslide.

I would answer i don’t know.

Of course we now know that it was caused by the movement of the earths crust and gravity.

You are using the exact same reasoning to arrive at god.

“According to you, did space, time, matter, and energy just create themselves?” The real and intellectually honest answer is we don’t know.

Now you can speculated your god did it, but you cannot substantiate that claim with any sort of real evidence. Therefore we are still at the state where we do not know.

**
Can you give an answer as to what caused the Big Bang? No? Didn’t think so!!!**

No one can, but we don’t insert a god as a default. The answer remains WE DON’T KNOW.

**Now, the way I see it, the only answer would have to be an uncreated something. Why, you may ask? Well, here is why.

If you say something created the universe, what created that something? The only thing to assume is that something or someone uncreated created our universe…
otherwise, you would have an unending paradox of sorts.**

Blind specualtion, and meaningless. We just don’t know, accept it.

**And if this something or someone is uncreated, that means that this creator exists in eternity. Why? Simple-it has no beginning-it is uncreated.

I am sorry to ramble on!**

I can see why you seek an answer, we all do, and it can be very frustrating that we don’t have one. However we have to be intellectually honest, we don’t know.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charlie, you do realize that what I believe and what the CC states is only binding on Catholics. So if you’re not a Catholic, what the heck are you talking about? Furthermore, the 90% was quoted by the U.N. on how effective condoms are in blocking diseases, so from my standpoint, that’s not safe sex. God bless.

So don’t think a married couple using condoms as an aid in birth control is immoral?

 

[josie_L]

So don’t think a married couple using condoms as an aid in birth control is immoral?

Charlie, I already told you what I think about birth control (you do realize that I can use natural family planning as a substitute).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charlie, I already told you what I think about birth control (you do realize that I can use natural family planning as a substitute).

Is that yes or no josie-ie?

 

[josie_L]

Is that yes or no josie-ie?

I’m a practicing Catholic, what do you think?

 

[josie_L]

Not at all. I wouldn’t have a problem with the personal choices of others (which are harmful to no-one) whether sexual preference is found to be biological or not. What Bob and Jim do in the privacy of their own home is simply not something I care about (moreover, I think regulating such behavior using the force of law is a gross violation of personal freedom).

Yes, but this question of “biological or not” is fundamental to our understanding of homosexuality as sin.

How exactly? Sounds like wild speculation (and typical theistic slippery slope logic).

Why is it slipper slope logic, when we know others will start demanding their rights as well, like for example, polygamists, will they also demand full rights as well (because we can keep on redefining the meaning of marriage till there’s nothing left to redefine) or how about marrying your pet (you think that’s crazy, well, I’ve already heard of such a case)? In Japan some people want to marry cartoons (the virtual kind)? Marriage will lose all sense of meaning and purpose which is I believe the intent of those (secularists / atheists / radicalists) trying to slowly but surely eradicate all religious rituals and traditions.

How so? Is anyone demanding heterosexual marriage be outlawed simultaneously?

No, but what the purveyors of change are essentially doing is destroying our core understanding of marriage to fit their understanding of morality and societal progress.

I think you’re referring to a TV sitcom from the 1950’s (and as it turns out the actors who played the characters were gay or addicted to drugs)

Wow, the words of cynic (we don’t have enough of those).

You mean if they would just shut up and stay in the closet right? How would you feel if Catholics were relegated to a similar status?

They may have their civil unions with all the civil rights and liberties they deserve without calling it marriage. Is that so horrible?

according to the bible god tosses people who don’t make the cut into an eternal inferno … therefore it isn’t possible to judge in the same way god judges.

God doesn’t toss anyone to Hell (denial and/or hatred of God’s commandments is the reason people end up there). By saying we have no right to judge like God I reference those who like to say who’s going to Hell (and there is quite a few of them that think we Catholics are going to Hell).

I don’t want to get into a theological debate (since I’m not a theist). Nevertheless, science is pretty close to discovering a nexus between human biology and sexual development.

It seems to me it’s always a bad idea to base ones religious views on unproven science.

Well, for now it seems ambiguous to say the least so I’ll stick to what I know.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I’m a practicing Catholic, what do you think?

I have not idea, and i really do have no idea why a married couple using condoms as form of birth control could be considered immoral?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yes, but this question of “biological or not” is fundamental to our understanding of homosexuality as sin.

I understand for theists this is an important question (since it bears on questions like how deterministic is the universe, what degree of free will do we really have, etc.). I suppose, from a philosophical standpoint it’s also important … but frankly I already view the universe as both wild and random, and highly deterministic.

Obviously these questions are beyond the scope of this discussion, so I’ll withhold commenting further on this issue for now.

Why is it slipper slope logic, when we know others will start demanding their rights as well, like for example, polygamists, will they also demand full rights as well (because we can keep on redefining the meaning of marriage till there’s nothing left to redefine) or how about marrying your pet (you think that’s crazy, well, I’ve already heard of such a case)? In Japan some people want to marry cartoons (the virtual kind)? Marriage will lose all sense of meaning and purpose which is I believe the intent of those (secularists / atheists / radicalists) trying to slowly but surely eradicate all religious rituals and traditions.

To say if homosexuals are given expanded rights (i.e. access to a marriage license) polygamists will suddenly begin to demand their rights (and eventually win them) is wildly speculative & it is a slippery slope fallacy (in fact it’s exactly the sort of argument I was referring to). I’m sure when this country was debating the question of whether or not to afford African Americans expanded rights or given women the right to vote opponents used similar slippery slope logic to drum up hysteria.

With respect your whole discourse here sounds like a hysterical tirade rather than something a reasoned and intelligent person would say or think? Giving homosexuals the right to do something they really do already (to spite the absence of a marriage certificate) is not a threat to you or your way of life.

Why do you insist on dictating to others how they should live, then when they protest you say they’re threatening your way of life? How exactly will the actions of others within the privacy of their own home prevent you from enjoying a happy marriage or attending the church of your choice on Sundays or whenever? The way I see it is you haven’t provided a real reason why anyone should object to gay marriage, other than you don’t like gay people. Anyone who thinks the mere presence of homosexuals will destroy their way of life has some serious issues IMHO.

They may have their civil unions with all the civil rights and liberties they deserve without calling it marriage. Is that so horrible?

It’s none of your business what consenting adults want to do with one another. So yes, your bigotry is horrible; and no matter what you think … you’ve clearly displayed a strong bias against homosexuals.

Well, for now it seems ambiguous to say the least so I’ll stick to what I know.

OK …

 

[josie_L]

Arrgh. Yes - I recognize that abstinence and fidelity did have an effect. I’m just saying that they’re not the whole story. The campaign was more effective when condoms were added. We see this most clearly in recent years, when HIV rates have risen in correlation with decrease in condom education and distribution.

“One important point is that abstaining from sex, being faithful, and using condoms—ABC-related behaviors—are outcomes of prevention strategies, not strategies in themselves. The reasons the ABC messages were exceptionally successful in Uganda extend beyond the content of the messages themselves. Abstinence, being faithful, or reducing one’s number of partners were indeed promoted among the general public, and condoms were emphasized for high-risk groups. But Uganda’s success in bringing about behavior change relied primarily on extensive social mobilization at every level and strong political leadership from its president, Yoweri Museveni, who particularly emphasized fidelity”

“HIV prevalence in Uganda peaked in 1991 at about 15 percent of the adult population and declined to about five percent in 2001 [28]. Trend data reveal epidemiologically significant behavior changes in Uganda, especially in reduced numbers of sexual partners and later sexual debut. Concurrent partner reduction among both men and women was a key factor in the reduction of HIV infection in Uganda [4,29]. Significantly, much of the most substantial behavior change occurred among men [30].”

“According to Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and other research, median age at first sex rose by 1.2 years for girls and 1.7 years for boys between 1989 and 2000 [31]. The percent of 15–19-year-old women ever having sex dropped from 74 percent to 51 percent; among men of the same age, the figure dropped from 68 percent to 42 percent. The percentage of Ugandan women aged 15–24 reporting premarital sex also declined from 53 percent to 16 percent; among young men, the decline in premarital sex was from 60 percent to 23 percent [28]. Data from Uganda’s 2000–2001 DHS show a remarkably high 78 percent of unmarried 15–19-year-old men and women reporting zero sexual partners in the past year [31].”

“Between 1989 and 1995, the WHO Global Programme on AIDS and UNAIDS reported that the percent of Ugandan women with one or more casual partners dropped from 16 percent to six percent, while the same figures for men went from 35 percent to 15 percent [28]. Perhaps even more remarkably, the number of men reporting three or more partners declined from 15 percent in 1989 to three percent in 1995 [18]. Reported extramarital sex among women in Uganda is now very rare at one to three percent [18]. Anecdotal evidence from field researchers suggests that among younger men, having an STI, once considered a badge of manhood, is now in the era of AIDS considered a matter of shame or stupidity (S. Watkins, D. Halperin, personal communications). The “B” message may also have been relevant for some women, especially younger unmarried women who were sexually active and had multiple partners [2].”

plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030379

There is no way that condoms played the key role or was the key to success in lowering HIV rates.

Please read this article from Dr. Edward Green:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

 

[josie_L]

To say if homosexuals are given expanded rights (i.e. access to a marriage license) polygamists will suddenly begin to demand their rights (and eventually win them) is wildly speculative & it is a slippery slope fallacy (in fact it’s exactly the sort of argument I was referring to). I’m sure when this country was debating the question of whether or not to afford African Americans expanded rights or given women the right to vote opponents used similar slippery slope logic to drum up hysteria.

With respect your whole discourse here sounds like a hysterical tirade rather than something a reasoned and intelligent person would say or think? Giving homosexuals the right to do something they really do already (to spite the absence of a marriage certificate) is not a threat to you or your way of life.

Why do you insist on dictating to others how they should live, then when they protest you say they’re threatening your way of life? How exactly will the actions of others within the privacy of their own home prevent you from enjoying a happy marriage or attending the church of your choice on Sundays or whenever? The way I see it is you haven’t provided a real reason why anyone should object to gay marriage, other than you don’t like gay people. Anyone who thinks the mere presence of homosexuals will destroy their way of life has some serious issues IMHO.

I can’t believe you just said this to me, I did not say the mere presence of homosexuals will destroy our way of life, I said that they have no right to redefine marriage. I’m not stopping them from having a loving relationship, I’m saying simply give them the rights they wish to have that married people do but within civil unions. And furthermore, I have given a real reason which you do not accept, I can’t help that you see things differently. I’m sorry but did I hurt your feelings? I did not mean to.

It’s none of your business what consenting adults want to do with one another. So yes, your bigotry is horrible; and no matter what you think … you’ve clearly displayed a strong bias against homosexuals.

I never said it was my business, and I’m not bigoted, please do not call me that.

OK …

I think I’ll refrain from giving my opinions. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

I have not idea, and i really do have no idea why a married couple using condoms as form of birth control could be considered immoral?

It doesn’t matter what I think do whatever you want. God bless.

 

[gearhead]

I think that any sane and logical person, even if having no previous knowledge of any god/gods, can come to the conclusion of a “first cause.”

Sure. I see no valid argument to infer that this “first cause” has any of the attributes normally assigned to a god, though.

The “empirical evidence” I base it on is existence! Cause and effect!I base it on is the fact that I am really sitting here,existing in this very real universe, talking to you, a very real person, over the very real internet!
Have you ever heard of something called "cause and effect"?

If I see a ball rolling, I assume that it was thrown/pushed/bumped. I don’t assume that it “moved itself.” Something caused it to move.
Unlike you (apparently), I believe in cause and effect. (Notice how I use the word believe:thumbsup

Except when it comes to God. Then you don’t believe in cause and effect, do you?

Can you give an answer as to what caused the Big Bang? No? Didn’t think so!!!

I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with “I don’t know”. Based on the available evidence, I think it’s the most honest answer.

However, just for argument’s sake, let’s try another explanation: unicorns. Unicorns caused the Big Bang. They were able to do this because unicorns are magical creatures.

There. Now we have an alternative to your “goddidit” hypothesis. I’d like to hear why you think it’s more reasonable than the “unicorns” hypothesis.

Now, the way I see it, the only answer would have to be an uncreated something. Why, you may ask? Well, here is why.

If you say something created the universe, what created that something? The only thing to assume is that something or someone uncreated created our universe…
otherwise, you would have an unending paradox of sorts.

Why? What makes you think that the Big Bang was the first creation of everything in the universe? Really, all the Big Bang is, is the moment where the rules of physics break down, so we can’t say what came before. This is different from saying that there was nothing at all before.

Also, my unicorn hypothesis addresses this problem, but it handles things a bit differently: magic created unicorns, and unicorns created magic. This may seem like a paradox, but as I mentioned earlier, unicorns are magical and therefore not subject to normal rules.

And if this something or someone is uncreated, that means that this creator exists in eternity. Why? Simple-it has no beginning-it is uncreated.

Hmm. Unicorns don’t need to exist “in eternity”, whatever that means. They can exist in the normal universe, despite having created it. This is because they’re magical.

So… why is an entity who is immortal, doles out rules for humanity in the form of stone tablets and occasionally appears on Earth in human form any more reasonable of an explanation than a collection of entities who aren’t immortal but have four hooves and a horn?

There is no way that condoms played the key role or was the key to success in lowering HIV rates.

You’re bound and determined to ignore what I’m saying, aren’t you?

For the final time: I’m not saying that condoms magically did everything by themselves. I’m saying that their inclusion in the campaign made it more effective; that’s all. Not that they “played the key role” or were the “key to success”, just that the Ugandan anti-AIDS campaign worked better with condoms than without.

 

[shoewindow3000]

I guess the atheists here don’t understand philosophy. Not once did I use God as a “default” answer or as a cop out.

Instead of using a condescending attitude, just try reasoning.

I try to keep the philosophy in layman’s terms so that you can understand basic concepts more clearly. I guess that doesn’t work, either!!!

Philosophy isn’t science!!! You don’t say, “I don’t know.” You try to come to a conclusion through reasoning.

I give you a philosophical answer, and you give me, "you can’t prove that."Jeez, it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes!

Don’t accuse me of petitio principii! I assumed nothing in my reasoning (other than the fact that time and eternity are separate, which doesn’t matter in this discussion. That’s it!)

If you can’t give a philosophical argument to my philosophical reasoning, then don’t criticize it.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I guess the atheists here don’t understand philosophy. Not once did I use God as a “default” answer or as a cop out.

Instead of using a condescending attitude, just try reasoning.

I try to keep the philosophy in layman’s terms so that you can understand basic concepts more clearly. I guess that doesn’t work, either!!!

Philosophy isn’t science!!! You don’t say, “I don’t know.” You try to come to a conclusion through reasoning.

I give you a philosophical answer, and you give me, "you can’t prove that."Jeez, it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes!

Don’t accuse me of petitio principii! I assumed nothing in my reasoning (other than the fact that time and eternity are separate, which doesn’t matter in this discussion. That’s it!)

If you can’t give a philosophical argument to my philosophical reasoning, then don’t criticize it.

I’m just pointing out that you cannot substantiate your position. Philosophical answers however interesting don’t really mean much. When it comes to understanding our universe philosophy is pretty much redundant compared to science. I don’t mean that as a dig, and philosophy has it uses, but furthering the knowledge of mankind and discerning truth is the job for science.

I don’t need two give you a “philosophical” answer. You are basing your belief on unfounded assumptions. We don’t know anything about before the big bang. Therefore your assumptions are meaningless, your speculation is meaningless, your **philosophy **is meaningless.

It seem you openly admit you cannot substantiate your claim. I take it you are aware of the fact that god is then just a personal belief, not knowledge. All we are asking for is a little intellectual honesty.