atheism

[Charles_Darwin]

So which is it?

It is… i couldn’t careless about the bible or jesus.

You’ve called me a bigot, said I was comparing homosexuality to pedophilia (while ignoring the "comparison"to UFC fighters and gladiators) implied I was somehow out of the dark ages, said my mindset was the problem with society (as if I am impeding scientific inquiry)

You mind set does. Did you watch the video, you should it might open your eyes, if you are capable of letting them be opened? It explain EXACTLY what is wrong with your mindset, and the horrible effects it has had on humanity.

accused me of injecting a “god of the gaps” explanation

No i didn’t, i said you are happy with a non answer.

**Further, you state that morals are based upon society, while ignoring the root of your own society, and dismissing anyone else who bases their morality on just as subjective a source as your own. **

The route of my society? Ah yeah we owe everything to the catholic church eh? I forgot about that post.

And I’m the dogmatist?

Are you trying to say your not?

**Let’s talk again when you get out of grade school, Chuck. I’m done.

You can have the last word. **

Awww would you like a hug? Come on lets hug it out… Huffy wuffy kins

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t say that. I said that the campaign emphasized both. I never said “equally”.

Ok, then which did they emphasize more?

Or, if you prefer, what the campaign actually said: if you can do it, abstain. If you don’t abstain, be faithful to one partner. And if you’re sexually active, use a condom.

Exactly, condoms were used as a last resort, they emphasized abstinence and being faithful to one partner before and above condom use. I have to reiterate that condom use itself had little to do with the success in Uganda.

“Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, their government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one’s partner afterwards. They only reluctantly advised condoms for high risk groups (like prostitutes) whom they knew would not accept the other two approaches.”

“Billboards, radio announcements, print ads, and school programs all promoted the virtues of abstinence and fidelity to prevent HIV/AIDS.”

“The results were astonishing.”

“In 1991, the prevalence rate of HIV was 15%. By 2001, it had dropped to 5%. It was the biggest HIV infection reduction in world history.”

theologyofthebody.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-condoms-really-stop-aids-in-africa.html

Regardless of the personal feelings of the Ugandan first family, the promotion of the “ABC” plan was done by other agencies… all of which recognized condoms as the “C” in “ABC”.

But it wasn’t the “C” in the ABC plan that caused the rates to slide down drastically as it did.

“Not so, says Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. Dr. Green was a strong proponent of condom distribution to stem HIV/AIDS… that is, until the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired him to study the reasons behind the success in Uganda.”

“The results of his research left him little doubt. “Reduction in the number of sexual partners was probably the single most important behavioral change that resulted in prevalence decline,” he noted. “Abstinence was probably the second most important change” (testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as reported by Joseph Loconte).”

“It is a very indicting statement about the effectiveness of condoms,” he told Citizen Magazine. “You cannot show that more condoms have led to less AIDS in Africa… I look at the data and I see that what might be called a more liberal response to AIDS — more and more millions or billions of condoms — has simply not worked, especially in parts of the world with the highest infection rate, Africa and the Caribbean.”

theologyofthebody.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-condoms-really-stop-aids-in-africa.html

When condoms are simply dumped on a country without a plan, I agree that they’re ineffective. However, they’ve shown their worth as an element of an integrated strategy to fight HIV.

Condoms had little to do with the success in Uganda.

 

[gearhead]

Exactly, condoms were used as a last resort, they emphasized abstinence and being faithful to one partner before and above condom use.

And they also emphasized that condom use was appropriate when those first two points failed.

I have to reiterate that condom use itself had little to do with the success in Uganda.

The you have a poor understanding of the situation in Uganda.

“Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, their government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one’s partner afterwards. They only reluctantly advised condoms for high risk groups (like prostitutes) whom they knew would not accept the other two approaches.”

“Billboards, radio announcements, print ads, and school programs all promoted the virtues of abstinence and fidelity to prevent HIV/AIDS.”

Yes, the Ugandan government started out resisting condom use. It wasn’t until the early 90s that condoms were widely distributed. Even with the government’s emphasis on abstinence and fidelity, the Ugandan HIV infection rate continued to rise until its peak in 1991, which coincides with the beginning of widespread condom distribution.

However, only part of this can be attributed to any sort of government campaign, whether it included condoms or not. A very large part of the drop in the number of HIV-positive cases was due to the huge numbers of AIDS-related deaths in an era before the general public had access to ARV drugs.

But it wasn’t the “C” in the ABC plan that caused the rates to slide down drastically as it did.

No, of course not. HIV cases rose through the 1980s, even with abstinence and fidelity promotion campaigns. Infection rates dropped just as condom distribution began, and crept up again when condom distribution and education was cut back. But condoms had absolutely nothing to do with the success of Uganda’s anti-AIDS campaign. Right.

 

[josie_L]

And they also emphasized that condom use was appropriate when those first two points failed.

The ABCs was directed to every individual, who first and foremost should abstain - A, if they could not abstain then they were to be faithful to one partner - B, if they could not be faithful to one partner then they needed to use a condom - C. Obviously, most people chose to abstain or be faithful otherwise the rate of HIV infected would have literally remained the same for condom use in other countries which did not promote abstinence or faithfulness had high unchanging rates of HIV infected.

No, of course not. HIV cases rose through the 1980s, even with abstinence and fidelity promotion campaigns. Infection rates dropped just as condom distribution began, and crept up again when condom distribution and education was cut back. But condoms had absolutely nothing to do with the success of Uganda’s anti-AIDS campaign. Right.

Well, geez wheez, don’t you think it would take some time before we saw the effects of abstinence and fidelity take its course, and how pray tell can infection rates drop “just as condom distribution began”?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Forget Uganda, This is not a problem confined to one country. It through the entire human race.

You can spin it any way you want, but it is plain and simple. Using a condom, reduces STD’s and unwanted pregnancy.

The simple facts…

msnbc.msn.com/id/8399212/

James Trussell, who serves on the board of the Medical Institute and is director of Princeton University’s Office of Population Research,** said there is “absolutely incontrovertible evidence” that condoms reduce transmission of the most serious sexually transmitted disease, AIDS.**

“To my mind, everything else is gravy,” Trussell said this week. “All of this is ideologically motivated. What they’re really concerned about is people who are not married having sex.”

When latex condoms are used every time and put on early enough, they reduce chances of pregnancy over a one-year period to** 3 percent, compared with 85 percent without birth control.** Likewise,** condoms cut risk of HIV infection by about 80 percent, to less than a 1 percent chance of infection per year.**

 

[shoewindow3000]

Let’s clear some things up:

Society and the Church have different definitions of homosexual, which is where the confusion lies.

According to society, a homosexual is anyone who has a homosexual orientation.

This is not how the Church defines the word.

According to the Church, a homosexual is anyone who engages in homosexual activities, regardless of orientation.

Sin is an act of the will; therefore, sexual orientation is not a sin.

When we say being a homosexual is a sin, we mean actually having sex with someone of the same gender, not sexual orientation.

Just like when we say. for example, being a prostitute is sinful:
We are condemning the act, not the person.

If the critics would read the catechism, they would actually see what the Church they criticize actually teaches!!

Another example is how the criticize the Pope for saying not to use condoms.

He isn’t saying not to have sex without condoms:
He is simply reaffirming the Church’s teaching that any sexual activity besides procreation within marriage is sin. In other words, all who are follows of Christ are called to practice the virtue of chastity in some form.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Here is a video about what can happen when the religious let there belief system interfere with medical practices. Have a look christians, its only 5 mins long. Open your eyes…

youtube.com/watch?v=jwcsiexx0h4&feature=sub

 

[shoewindow3000]

Here is a video about what can happen when the religious let there belief system interfere with medical practices. Have a look christians, its only 5 mins long. Open your eyes…

youtube.com/watch?v=jwcsiexx0h4&feature=sub

Should I say that Hitler represents atheists? Or that Nazi Germany killed innocent people is the inevitable result of moral relativism?

I could, but then you would have a tantrum!

 

[shoewindow3000]

It is also funny how atheists apparently like to use English translations from the 16th century!

Look, all this video does is show the peoples’ ignorance of Sacred Scripture.

It reminds me of the Pharisees who tested Jesus with they found the prostitute. After asking him about the law, didn’t Jesus say, “Let him who is without sin throw the first stone”?

I guess you (along with the people who claim to be Christians in that video) don’t get it!

(To me, just the fact that you are even on this forum shows that you are responding to God’s grace, even though you don’t realize it yet!)

 

[josie_L]

Forget Uganda, This is not a problem confined to one country. It through the entire human race.

You can spin it any way you want, but it is plain and simple. Using a condom, reduces STD’s and unwanted pregnancy.

The simple facts…

msnbc.msn.com/id/8399212/

James Trussell, who serves on the board of the Medical Institute and is director of Princeton University’s Office of Population Research,** said there is “absolutely incontrovertible evidence” that condoms reduce transmission of the most serious sexually transmitted disease, AIDS.**

“To my mind, everything else is gravy,” Trussell said this week. “All of this is ideologically motivated. What they’re really concerned about is people who are not married having sex.”

When latex condoms are used every time and put on early enough, they reduce chances of pregnancy over a one-year period to** 3 percent, compared with 85 percent without birth control.** Likewise,** condoms cut risk of HIV infection by about 80 percent, to less than a 1 percent chance of infection per year.**

Trussell is an *** if he thinks that the CC or others are concerned with virtues rather than lives; condoms are 90% effective (not 100) that means 1 in 10 condoms can fail in protecting you against disease, would you take that chance if you were living in a high risk area where there were many people infected with HIV? I’d like to see if you or Trussell (the idiot) would take that risk?

p.s. And yes, lets talk about the motivation of Conceptrative/pharmeceutical companies who make billions of dollars selling their wares to a people who are not told the straight up facts about the effectiveness of condoms.

 

[Convert66]

All of this is ideologically motivated.

He must have meant this ironically.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The Pope said he is not sure why one person has these feelings and why others do not. But he said he does not deny medical research and welcomes it. But he said while he does not deny that the feelings are true, actually he said he agrees that certain people have these feelings while others do not.

He said that we all have crosses to carry. But while he does not deny the feelings he said he still believes that like any other feelings they can be controlled by the grace of God.

obviously I have a different take on this. It’s not that I don’t think actions can be controlled, because in many cases they can be. However, since I’m not a theist I don’t believe in any sort of supernatural intervention in our lives & therefore I think it’s fallacious to think these folks will magically become something they’re not (and probably never can be).

Those were not is exact words but its the same meaning. He said just like one person can drink alcohol every day and quit if they want, or drink one or two drinks and another cannot. So he again understands that alcohol can be anothers cross to carry, while it does not effect another.

what is true for alcoholism may not be true for sexual preference. In other words we can’t make simplistic analogies without any empirical evidence. There are many mental conditions that present in a much more dramatic and uncontrollable way (compared to alcoholism). Psychosis, bipolar disorder, just to name a couple. These conditions require medication (and those who suffer from them cannot control their deviant behavior without medication).

That is why the CC has help for gay people. THe CC feels for gay people and loves them. Hate the sin love the sinner like I told you. The Pope said never condemn pray for that person. BUt just because we love someone we do not have to love the sin.

this is for the most part not stuff I consider when discerning the social harm of individual behavior. From my standpoint I see no obvious or inherent harm with regard to homosexuality, and since I also do not believe in an omniscient deity who claims to know the future harm such conduct might cause … I see no point in chastising these people (who are already depressed enough as it is).

What you define as loving they define as intolerant (therefore I don’t think Christian attitudes toward homosexuals can be reasonably defined as “loving”)

We do not judge anyone God does.

what world do you live in? Everybody judges everybody … that’s life.

He left us a gospel on how to live. It is not for him, it is for us to find true happiness. God loves Gay people. He just hates the sin. And knows their struggle and is there to help them. Just like he loves drunks. but hates to see them drunk, etc. He is the Great Shepherd waiting for his sheep to come home. There is no sin to separate us from God. He is a forgiving God, waiting for all his children to come home. All we have to do is repent and quit the sin.

according to your bible didn’t your god create everyone and everything? Didn’t he know exactly how everything would turn out? It sounds like you’re just saying this stuff to sound warm and fuzzy, while in reality this is not an accurate depiction of your religious system.

 

[josie_L]

obviously I have a different take on this. It’s not that I don’t think actions can be controlled, because in many cases they can be. However, since I’m not a theist I don’t believe in any sort of supernatural intervention in our lives & therefore I think it’s fallacious to think these folks will magically become something they’re not (and probably never can be).

But you’re basing this on the belief that homosexuality is biological (more than let us say environmental/social factors) and I can’t say that such a thing is as yet true, in fact, if it ever will be.

this is for the most part not stuff I consider when discerning the social harm of individual behavior. From my standpoint I see no obvious or inherent harm with regard to homosexuality, and since I also do not believe in an omniscient deity who claims to know the future harm such conduct might cause … I see no point in chastising these people (who are already depressed enough as it is).

Yes it can harm us from the standpoint of marriage and family. Homosexuals now seek to be married which will render our traditional / anthropological/ spiritual understanding of marriage and family as something to be defined by a minority. Marriage is meant to foster love and fidelity between man and wife so that they may procreate in an environment conducive for the proper growth (and protection) of children.

What you define as loving they define as intolerant (therefore I don’t think Christian attitudes toward homosexuals can be reasonably defined as “loving”)

I think that we would have no problems with homosexuals if we didn’t have to contend with the changes they wish to make on marriage and family.

what world do you live in? Everybody judges everybody … that’s life.

Very true (although we are not to judge in the manner that God does). But who’s right?

according to your bible didn’t your god create everyone and everything? Didn’t he know exactly how everything would turn out? It sounds like you’re just saying this stuff to sound warm and fuzzy, while in reality this is not an accurate depiction of your religious system.

God did not create us to be machines (we have free will) therefore any and all sin is not God’s fault but our own, that is why I don’t believe that homosexuality is, for example, mostly a biological phenomenon.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Should I say that Hitler represents atheists? Or that Nazi Germany killed innocent people is the inevitable result of moral relativism?

I could, but then you would have a tantrum!

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

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Trussell is an *** if he thinks that the CC or others are concerned with virtues rather than lives; condoms are 90% effective (not 100) that means 1 in 10 condoms can fail in protecting you against disease, would you take that chance if you were living in a high risk area where there were many people infected with HIV? I’d like to see if you or Trussell (the idiot) would take that risk?

p.s. And yes, lets talk about the motivation of Conceptrative/pharmeceutical companies who make billions of dollars selling their wares to a people who are not told the straight up facts about the effectiveness of condoms.

So you admit that condoms reduce STD’s by 90%? Again you have yet to answer, what business of your is it what two consenting adults do with their bodies?

 

[yankee_doodle]

But you’re basing this on the belief that homosexuality is biological (more than let us say environmental/social factors) and I can’t say that such a thing is as yet true, in fact, if it ever will be.

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 it can harm us from the standpoint of marriage and family.

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

Homosexuals now seek to be married which will render our traditional / anthropological/ spiritual understanding of marriage and family as something to be defined by a minority.

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

Marriage is meant to foster love and fidelity between man and wife so that they may procreate in an environment conducive for the proper growth (and protection) of children.

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)

I think that we would have no problems with homosexuals if we didn’t have to contend with the changes they wish to make on marriage and family.

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?

Very true (although we are not to judge in the manner that God does). But who’s right?

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 did not create us to be machines (we have free will) therefore any and all sin is not God’s fault but our own, that is why I don’t believe that homosexuality is, for example, mostly a biological phenomenon.

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.

 

[gearhead]

The ABCs was directed to every individual, who first and foremost should abstain - A, if they could not abstain then they were to be faithful to one partner - B, if they could not be faithful to one partner then they needed to use a condom - C.

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.

Obviously, most people chose to abstain or be faithful otherwise the rate of HIV infected would have literally remained the same for condom use in other countries which did not promote abstinence or faithfulness had high unchanging rates of HIV infected.

No, it wouldn’t have. Again: I’m not saying that condoms are a “magic bullet” that solves the problem by itself. I’m saying that they’re an important part of a strategy.

Well, geez wheez, don’t you think it would take some time before we saw the effects of abstinence and fidelity take its course, and how pray tell can infection rates drop “just as condom distribution began”?

Well, the obvious answer is that condoms are effective at preventing the transmission of HIV.

Trussell is an *** if he thinks that the CC or others are concerned with virtues rather than lives; condoms are 90% effective (not 100) that means 1 in 10 condoms can fail in protecting you against disease, would you take that chance if you were living in a high risk area where there were many people infected with HIV? I’d like to see if you or Trussell (the idiot) would take that risk?

That’s a rather misleading statistic, since it includes both proper and improper condom use. With proper use, the transmission rater is very low:

Are condoms effective at preventing infection with the HIV and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)?

Yes. Studies have shown that if a latex condom is used correctly every time you have sex, this is highly effective in providing protection against HIV.

The evidence for this is clearest in studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other not. i.e. “discordant couples”. In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.

…]

The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use, not the failure of the condom itself. Using oil-based lubricants can weaken the latex, causing the condom to break. Condoms can also be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails. Also, remember to check the expiry date of your condom!

Source

 

[yankee_doodle]

Quick comment on the discussion regarding condom use. Even if the failure rate were 10 or 20% (which its not) it wouldn’t matter. In an Africa you have bizarre tribal customs which is rarely mentioned in these discussions, which is the real cause behind their high HIV rates.

Abstinence will only happen through religious conversion and indoctrination (and it’s highly unlikely even that will be successful since Africans rarely surrender their customs. They typically conflate their bizarre tribal customs with Christianity). In my undergraduate sociology course (though it’s been many years, I still remember this) I had a wonderful teacher who worked among African tribes teaching sex education. Here’s a list of some of the customs my teacher and her peers had to confront:

1. When a man dies his brother takes his deceased brothers wife as his own (including sexually).
2. When boys reach roughly 13 years old they are initiated into manhood through a ritual where several of the males in the tribe have intercourse with the boy.
3. Wearing condoms is taboo among African males.
4. Admitting you have AIDS is taboo among both male and female Africans.

Basically you have the perfect storm for the rampant transmission of HIV. Catholic missionaries have been down their in droves for decades, UN workers, private charities, Protestant religious organizations, etc. have been working this problem for a long, long time … with little success.

The only thing that has had some level of success has been conversion efforts by Pentecostals (who have little problem preaching an extremely dogmatic version of Christianity that demonizes local tribal customs). However, despite the success of Pentecostal conversion efforts, even that seems to be short lived (and as we’re also beginning to see in Latin America, going back and forth between various denominations of Christianity is becoming typical – but along the way Africans usually revert back to their dangerous customs).

You could convince them all adulterers will burn in hell for eternity or drop a billion condoms all over Africa … it wouldn’t matter. The only thing that really promotes sustained change among these third world peoples (and can pry them away from the more dangerous aspects of their cultures) is economic success.

 

[josie_L]

So you admit that condoms reduce STD’s by 90%? Again you have yet to answer, what business of your is it what two consenting adults do with their bodies?

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.

 

[josie_L]

Quick comment on the discussion regarding condom use. Even if the failure rate were 10 or 20% (which its not) it wouldn’t matter. In an Africa you have bizarre tribal customs which is rarely mentioned in these discussions, which is the real cause behind their high HIV rates.

Abstinence will only happen through religious conversion and indoctrination (and it’s highly unlikely even that will be successful since Africans rarely surrender their customs. They typically conflate their bizarre tribal customs with Christianity). In my undergraduate sociology course (though it’s been many years, I still remember this) I had a wonderful teacher who worked among African tribes teaching sex education. Here’s a list of some of the customs my teacher and her peers had to confront:

1. When a man dies his brother takes his deceased brothers wife as his own (including sexually).
2. When boys reach roughly 13 years old they are initiated into manhood through a ritual where several of the males in the tribe have intercourse with the boy.
3. Wearing condoms is taboo among African males.
4. Admitting you have AIDS is taboo among both male and female Africans.

Basically you have the perfect storm for the rampant transmission of HIV. Catholic missionaries have been down their in droves for decades, UN workers, private charities, Protestant religious organizations, etc. have been working this problem for a long, long time … with little success.

The only thing that has had some level of success has been conversion efforts by Pentecostals (who have little problem preaching an extremely dogmatic version of Christianity that demonizes local tribal customs). However, despite the success of Pentecostal conversion efforts, even that seems to be short lived (and as we’re also beginning to see in Latin America, going back and forth between various denominations of Christianity is becoming typical – but along the way Africans usually revert back to their dangerous customs).

You could convince them all adulterers will burn in hell for eternity or drop a billion condoms all over Africa … it wouldn’t matter. The only thing that really promotes sustained change among these third world peoples (and can pry them away from the more dangerous aspects of their cultures) is economic success.

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.