Pope-a-Dope

[Rev Dark]

I am serene. I am a pool of placid water. The sheltered cove of my good nature reflects the gentle sun that warms this earth.
Fuck it. Im pissed.
Benedict XVI, Benny the Strict, the Panzer Pope, has flapped his Teutonic gob in what can only be described as a big old screw you to rational thought. Taking a step back from Pope JP the Sequels moderate (for a Roman Catholic) stance on evolution, Benny has come out with both Lugers blazing in a book called Creation and Evolution.
His primary thrust is that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer. Now while I cannot speak for science as a whole, I am not sure the opinion of a man who speaks for his own imaginary friend should count for much.
Unfortunately it does. A lot. While Benny stopped just short of support of Intelligent Design, he came far too close. This will wave the red flag of ignorance and stupidity at school boards everywhere and you can hear the voices of gibbering trolls shouting teach the controversy and I didnt come from no ape. Look, Ive taken it up with the apes, and they are just as mortified at sharing a common ancestor, but are just a wee bit more self actualized about it.
The final crowning papal turd upon the pile which is Benedicts pronouncement is this gem. It is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete and scientifically proven theory.
That gentle friends and lurkers is what is commonly known as a lie. Its the big lie and it gets a lot of airplay. Evidence upon evidence upon evidence supports evolution; from transitional species to morphology to DNA analysis to geographic to geologic and so on down the list (I have offered a very, very abbreviated list here).
On the flip side the god hypothesis (It is not a theory) has no evidence. You can look at the world around you and say god did it but you cannot bring forward any evidence that he/she/it did. I personally cannot disprove god, only relegate him to the highest levels of improbability; but if cant disprove god is your primary argument, keep in mind that you also cannot disprove Zeus, Odin, Thor, The Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Yugo the Dwarf of Despair who is currently laying his eggs in your lower colon.
Miracles. Ooooh. Shiny. Step one, tying them to a miraculous source impossible. Ignorance of the mechanism does not mean that god did it. Unless ignorance is your god, which is true in so many depressing ways.
Non overlapping magisteria my hairy Canadian arse!

[Fidoohki]

..So? hey you are entitled to believe in what you want. It's
one of those 'free will' things just like I choose to believe
what I want and if I want to believe in god then I shall.
That is MY free will choice. However when you start dumping
on my beleifs because you don't agree with them then you
got a problem.
and I say so what if the POpe said it? He's being true to
his faith which given the way most aren't for the sake of
'political correctness' I find it refreshing. It shouldn't affect schools at all IMO. Schools teach science. church teaches religion. Knowing and believing are two different things.
'give that unto ceasar what is ceasars. give that unto god what is gods'.. or something like that.

And for the record the Imaginary pink unicorn says you are
a liar.
Hope it makes some sense,

[Rev Dark]

You can believe anything you want, from gods, to pixies, to the certainty that Jennifer Lopez is going to show up and gift upon you oral sex. You can also expect those beliefs to be challenged; by atheists, fairy deniers and Jennifer Lopez respecitvely.
For some strange reason religious belief seems to be granted a free pass on the usual discourse around beliefs. Which should not be the case; you can argue socialism, communism, authoritarianism, capitalism and if youve had a few hits from mighty joint, existentialism; but not religion? If your belief tells you that the world is 6,000 years old and was created in seven days, that is your belief. It does not make it true. You may take comfort in it. The fact that you find it comforting does not make it true. However you should expect that belief is to be challenged and you should be capable on evaluating the world around you to alter your beliefs in the face of evidence. If you are a liberal you can find yourself reevaluating your position based on a conservative argument and vice versa. We are a thinking species, and it is a very good idea to indulge in it.
As to the Pope and his faith; well I am sure that his refreshing stance, a blast of air from the bronze age, is welcome in these politically correct times. I am sure that stoning, animal sacrifice, slavery, women as property, no birth control, institutionalized hatred of gays and lesbians are all wonderful biblical values and he should be standing up for each and every one of them. The spread of STDs in developing nations could be significantly curbed if the RC church, a strong power for education in the area, got off the Onan express and gave the okay for rubber johnnies and stopped spreading the lie that they do not prevent transmission of STDs. Wouldnt that be refreshing?
And does that refreshing burst of air include the talking heads of other faiths? Islam has plenty of pronouncements that are true to the faith that might also be refreshing in these political correct time if you are a violent, misogynist, goit. The various sects of the LDS church have them too. Wouldnt you like the refreshing burst of air of the scripture driven morality of handing your thirteen year old daughter off to be the sixth wife of a fifty year old man? Id take issue with those refreshing stances and do.

---

It shouldn't affect schools at all IMO. Schools teach science. church teaches religion. Knowing and believing are two different things.

---

I guess you havent been paying attention to ID/Evolution controversy in the United States. Schools try and teach science, and school boards, under the control of fundamentalist nutbars (a highly technical term sorry) try and push it out in favor of their re-imaged creationism. One board went so far as to try and redefine science so that it could include a scope outside natural phenomena. Kitzmeller V. Dover Area School District. talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...dover.html
There are well funded movements in the United States, Britain, and distressingly, Canada that are aggressively pushing an anti-evolution agenda at the school board level. Why at the school board? Strangely enough, it is because at the science level they have no game. Intelligent design isnt even a hypothesis, let alone a theory; so ass-hats like the Discovery Institute attack science in schools, rather in peer reviewed journals.
Bottom line. Religious beliefs are no more subject to respect than any other belief. You can believe that gravity turns off every days between 3:00pm and 4:00pm, that does not make it true. You can believe in god the father, god the son and god the wispy spirit thing. That does not make it true.
Knowing, but believing something different anyway doesnt make sense. It is a grotesque self deception, and upon this rock are great faiths built.
Shayne
ps. The unicorn is just jealous because I have been touched by the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage and it has not.

[Fidoohki]

Faith is believing in something reguardless of the facts. The
thing is you can't prove god doesn't exsist. You can prove
fairies don't (Unless you live in San fran ) exsist and even
I don't think J-lo will be visiting me anytime soon..but I can
dream can't I?
And before you start quoting how wrong the bible is, it was
written by man, not god. So it could be wrong but I choose
to believe anyway because it is MY choice. Besides, if I
disbelieve in god then all it taught is suspect as well,
including compassion, mercy, kindness, helping your fellow
man? Without my faith then I should just become another
self absorbed, money grubbing drone of society. Science doesn't have these beliefs and a world where science rules
would make Nazi germany look like paradise...
Yeah the good old days of enforced religion.. before mustard gas, nerve agents, bombers, machine guns and the A bomb.
See? I can play the 'evils of fill in the blank' game too.
And the spread of STD in africa? I've never heard of virgins
getting STDs and rubbers are not 100% effective. imagine that, waiting til you are married to havesex. *GASP* The scandal! :/
As for other religions I can't say. I don't understand them
so why should I dump on them though I do object to their
treatment of others and when has the bride selling legally
happened in the USA? not for a long time.
And the lawsuits? I know and I consider them idiots
one and all. I live in the US where we have so
many different views it isn't funny but I'm in the minority
here. I believe that as long as you are not hurting anyone
you have the right to believe what you want. It makes the
country what it is for good or ill.
The 'bottom line' is why should you even care what I
believe? I'm not hurting anyone and I'm not alone in
that. those that offer their beliefs to others have that
right just like you have the right to offer your own beliefs
to them so they can decide. Ripping into anothers belief
because you don't agree with it is a sign of insecurity IMO.
You may see it as not making any sense, I see it as faith.
When you disprove god, let me know and we'll see how
it goes.
((Sorry it took so long to reply. took a bit to sort out
what I wanted to say.))
PS: The unicorn says she filed a restrainign order and a sexual
harrassment suit against the flying spaghetti monster for
throwing it's appendages around at the mythical beasts
office party.

[Epsilon]

---

Faith is believing in something reguardless of the facts. The
thing is you can't prove god doesn't exsist. You can prove
fairies don't (Unless you live in San fran ) exsist and even
I don't think J-lo will be visiting me anytime soon..but I can
dream can't I?

---

Actually you can't prive something doesn't exist. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. This is why logic has the 'burden of proof' which requires that the person asserting a statement be able to prove that statement is true. It is also why the criminal justice system has the 'presumption of innocence' and there are a lot of other things.
As for dreaming, go ahead. That's your right.

---

Besides, if I
disbelieve in god then all it taught is suspect as well,
including compassion, mercy, kindness, helping your fellow
man? Without my faith then I should just become another
self absorbed, money grubbing drone of society. Science doesn't have these beliefs and a world where science rules
would make Nazi germany look like paradise...

---

I do not believe in god, and yet I am capable of compassion, mercy, kindness and helping my fellow man. It's called "Enlightened Self Interest". The basic principle of the philosophy is that I, as a member of society, wish to live in a society which provides basic human rights, charity and other qualities because that makes for a better society in general.
A lot of deists support the idea that atheists don't have the same moral convictions as the religious. I personally find that insulting. If children are taught to respect human rights and proviude charity to their fellow man then they don't need a "god" to threaten them into this. We have our own conscious and the rule of law to support society.
And trust me, you do not want to start bringing up bad effects on society. Or are you really saying that religious societies are incapable of being monstrous dystopias?

---

And the spread of STD in africa? I've never heard of virgins
getting STDs and rubbers are not 100% effective. imagine that, waiting til you are married to havesex. *GASP* The scandal! :/

---

So... all those children born with AIDS in Africa are just sex machines, are they? I mean, you've never heard of virgins getting STDs, therefore it must be impossible. So all those babies must have been born with... uh Not-AIDS. It's exactly like HIV, but is morally upright!
And yes, condoms aren't 100% effective. So, let's use this logic to its extreme: airbags and seatbelts are not 100% effective in svaing lives - therefore nobody is allowed to drve anymore. Food safety regulations are not 100% effective in preventing the spread of tainted or infected food - therefore we all shoud stop eating.

---

The 'bottom line' is why should you even care what I
believe? I'm not hurting anyone and I'm not alone in
that.

---

I don't think he's objecting to your personal faith. It is when people impose their faith on others that there is a problem. It is especially relevant when matters of faith conflict with matters of reason.
If a man preaches that god is with him and that all is right with the world that is one thing. If his congretations is next to an erupting volcano and he is preaching that they shouldn't move because 'god will protect them' then that is entirely another matter.
-----------------
Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

You cannot prove god exists, but you can determine the probability of such an improbable being existing; it is not a 50% yes/no answer. Likewise you cannot prove fairies, the celestial teapot, Zeus, Odin, etc dont exist; but you can determine the probability of such (so close to zero as to approach it).

---

And before you start quoting how wrong the bible is, it was
written by man, not god. So it could be wrong but I choose
to believe anyway because it is MY choice. Besides, if I
disbelieve in god then all it taught is suspect as well,
including compassion, mercy, kindness, helping your fellow
man? Without my faith then I should just become another
self absorbed, money grubbing drone of society. Science doesn't have these beliefs and a world where science rules
would make Nazi germany look like paradise...

---

So the only reason you are not an utter bastard is that you fear the disapproval of your personal god. That is a pretty piss poor reason to be moral; fear of the celestial security guard. This is one of the great fallacies; that the absence of a higher power is the absence of morality. We are social creatures and within the society determine the rules by which we live together. Interesting choice in belief in the bible written by man as you are essentially cherry picking the parts you like, and throwing away the bits you do not, or the ones that are no longer sanguine to the world you live in. A rational process dictating to an irrational belief.

---

Yeah the good old days of enforced religion.. before mustard gas, nerve agents, bombers, machine guns and the A bomb.
See? I can play the 'evils of fill in the blank' game too.

---

And which holy book do these come from? Armaments? Alongside the holy hand grenade? These are tools, no different than the axe, the sword, the bow, the catapult and the weasel thrower. You are confusing tools with the instructions laid out by scripture for the use of those tools, who you can, and should, use them on, and how you are righteous for doing so. No machine gun ever said blessed be the perforated, for my light shall shine through them. It was some dickhead holding the gun and pulling the trigger for whatever reason he or she chose to real or imagined.

---

And the spread of STD in africa? I've never heard of virgins getting STDs and rubbers are not 100% effective. imagine that, waiting til you are married to havesex. *GASP* The scandal!

---

Virgins get STDs all the time; passed from the parent while in utero. Likewise they can get them from non-sexual transfer; sharing needles; and other common disease vectors.
Biology is just something that happened to other people? One of the dominant survival mechanisms built into the human animal is the willingness and aggressive drive to reproduce. Unlike most animals that breed seasonally, we are in heat pretty much all the time. That is an integral part of our biological makeup. Denial of that mechanism is inherently unnatural, but we have technology that allows us to indulge in that biological drive. I should note that it is a biological drive that has no sense of the future we are programmed at a very low level to want to fuck regardless of social, economic and environmental conditions. As rational creatures we can choose to control this through multiple means, as the ability to think rationally allows us to transcend our biological programming and look to the future. Abstinence is a terrible method, it just does not work in practice, and given the repressive nature of most current American abstinence education programs it leads to the further spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, as it does not educate on birth control methods other than keep your legs crossed and your pecker parked. On the other hand we have a variety of technologies, and while no technology is 100%, they provide a far more effective means of preventing pregnancy and transfer of STDs.

---

As for other religions I can't say. I don't understand them
so why should I dump on them though I do object to their
treatment of others and when has the bride selling legally
happened in the USA? not for a long time.

---

Thats right, it hasnt happened legally (it happens illegally, and unfortunately enforcement in Utah is pretty piss poor on the matter). Why, because society as a whole has agreed to it. You should challenge faith as you would any other act within society and not give it a pass because it is faith rather than just something the individual has chosen to do. Now you will notice that I do not dump on religions haphazardly I dump on religions in a tightly focused, educated fashion; I daresay I could hold my own quite handily on most matters of pre and early Christian history as well as later sects and schisms and the previous myths and legends that were used as the basis for the Judeo-Christian faith. I am pretty handy in the Muslim faith to, and can make my way around Hinduism, Buddhism and Shinto. If I object to a particular religious meme it is because of a societal issue, not just because I am feeling like picking a fight.

---

And the lawsuits? I know and I consider them idiots
one and all. I live in the US where we have so
many different views it isn't funny but I'm in the minority
here. I believe that as long as you are not hurting anyone
you have the right to believe what you want. It makes the
country what it is for good or ill.

---

Ah, a telling statement. As long as you are not hurting anyone. Is that physically? Mentally? Educationally? Is telling the truth as you see it harmful to others the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses who show up unannounced at my door find it harmful, to them. The thing that makes America great as a country is that it deliberately removed religion from the process of government. So you can have whatever beliefs you want, but it is the rule of law, not the rule of the church. Too bad that this separation is steadily eroding.

---

The 'bottom line' is why should you even care what I
believe? I'm not hurting anyone and I'm not alone in
that. those that offer their beliefs to others have that
right just like you have the right to offer your own beliefs
to them so they can decide. Ripping into anothers belief
because you don't agree with it is a sign of insecurity IMO.

---

You also believe in an imaginary friend, ergo your opinion is suspect. Okay, that was just slightly unfair, but only slightly. So by your logic, objecting to someone striking their wife because their faith dictates that it is okay to do so is a sign of insecurity? Or objecting to a religious leader spreading an outright lie about the state of scientific research is a sign of insecurity? No. That theory does not hold water. You should object to belief that you object to; engage in educated debate of the subject; no matter what the subject. What you should not do is ignore it just because it is a matter of faith to someone.

---

You may see it as not making any sense, I see it as faith.
When you disprove god, let me know and we'll see how
it goes.

---

Actually it works the other way around. You have posited a hypothesis god exists it is up to you to provide the evidence that your god exists, including observable data, and repeatable experimentation and peer review. I could claim that I have created the flux-bypass-defenestrator it is not up to you to prove the existence of such an unlikely construction; it is up to me to back up my claim that the odd thing does actually exist and is not just a figment of my imagination.
Shayne

[Ayiekie]

---

Besides, if I disbelieve in god then all it taught is suspect as well, including compassion, mercy, kindness, helping your fellow man? Without my faith then I should just become another self absorbed, money grubbing drone of society. Science doesn't have these beliefs and a world where science rules would make Nazi germany look like paradise...

---

First off, science is not a religion. It isn't concerned with moral belief. Equating the two, or implying they are mutually exclusive, is silly. Many scientists are religious.
Second off, you are typing this on a computer to be sent to other computers on the Internet around the world. You are touching plastic created by extracting oil from the ground, you are benefitting from your national power grid, the computer sends signals through phone or cable lines (or satellite, even better). Everywhere you look, everything you do, everything you wear, everything you touch is a product, in some way good or ill, of science. You would be hard-pressed to find a world science rules more thoroughly than it does this one.
Third off, you give yourself too little credit. Do you really think, were you to wake up tomorrow and decide you don't believe in God, that you would suddenly become completely selfish? You'd stop caring for your friends and loving your family, because there was no God? Nonsense. I don't believe that, and I doubt you do either.
Moreover, I'll even prove it to a certain extent. By your own admission, you say the Bible was written by humanity, and is therefore not necessarily divinely inspired. Moreover, I will absolutely guarantee you do not follow every moral precept laid down in the Bible. Therefore, how do you choose what morality to follow, since you have no clear-cut document sent to you by God? I suspect that you do so much as any nonbeliever does - by trusting in what your feelings tell you is right. I might be wrong, but by your own statements, it seems that your belief in God does not seem to be the basis for all your moral beliefs.
You may find this to be an interesting essay.

[Fidoohki]

" Actually you can't prive something doesn't exist. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. This is why logic has the 'burden of proof' which requires that the person asserting a statement be able to prove that statement is true. It is also why the criminal justice system has the 'presumption of innocence' and there are a lot of other things. "

But if there is no way to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't that apply to god also?
" I do not believe in god, and yet I am capable of compassion, mercy, kindness and helping my fellow man. It's called "Enlightened Self Interest". The basic principle of the philosophy is that I, as a member of society, wish to live in a society which provides basic human rights, charity and other qualities because that makes for a better society in general. "
The problem with that is that those values had to come from
a religious source. Show me a non-religious source from ancient times where they were created. Now I'm not saying without religion they wouldn't have been created but it falls into the area of 'what if.' Athiests tend to refuse to
acknowledge things like that ... the ones I know do
anyway. Present company exempted of course.
"So... all those children born with AIDS in Africa are just sex machines, are they? I mean, you've never heard of virgins getting STDs, therefore it must be impossible. So all those babies must have been born with... uh Not-AIDS. It's exactly like HIV, but is morally upright! "
Are you trying to tell me that the AID epidemic in africa is caused solely by dirty needles and blood transfusions? With abstinance there are a lot of indicators that the epidemic would not be anywhere near as bad or even BE an
epidemic at all. Again this falls into 'what if' though. Also
it may seem mean but if you have aids and know it what the hell are you doing trying to have kids anyway!?! That's
monsterous IMO.
"I don't think he's objecting to your personal faith. It is when people impose their faith on others that there is a problem. It is especially relevant when matters of faith conflict with matters of reason.
If a man preaches that god is with him and that all is right with the world that is one thing. If his congretations is next to an erupting volcano and he is preaching that they shouldn't move because 'god will protect them' then that is entirely another matter. "
That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.
Well in my faith, that falls under 'God helps those who help themselves'. Which means you tell the man preaching just that then run like hell.
Hope it helps,

[Epsilon]

---

But if there is no way to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't that apply to god also?

---

Yes. But once again "Burden of proof".
The fact is, I can't prove god doesn't exist. However I can prove that everything god is attributed to could have come about by other means and/or just plain didn't happen. The fact is that the existence of god is ridiculous on its face. As patently ridiculous as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the burden is on anybody asserting god exists to prove it. Until you do, I'll have to assume he doens't. Much the same way I will assume that things will fall down and the sun will rise in the east.

---

Are you trying to tell me that the AID epidemic in africa is caused solely by dirty needles and blood transfusions?

---

You said absitenence would mena noone would get AIDS. You were wrong.

---

The problem with that is that those values had to come from
a religious source.

---

No. Animals exhibit moralistic behaviour all the time. It is entirely possible for the morals and values we hold to be totally derived from biological pressures, and there are quite a few studies supporting this.
Granted, we haven't seen a society develop morals without a religon of some kind, but we also haven't seen any society develop from scracth without a religion. However, it should be noted that societies such as Native American, Oriental and others have all managed to have moral people in them without paying lipservice to the Abrahamic diety.

---

That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.

---

So, answer me this:
The pope issues a statement condeming antibiotics. He calls them evil and says that all good Christians should refrain from using them.
Is this wrong? Or is it just him exercising his beliefs?
--------------------
Epsilon

[Ayiekie]

---

The problem with that is that those values had to come from a religious source.

---

No.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Many animals - dolphins, for instance - have been observed showing compassion towards members of their species, and even towards other species (such as humans).
Dolphins don't worship at any temples I'm aware of.
Babies and toddlers are also quite capable of acts of selflessness and pleasure in the happiness of others. They are not cognizant of any religion.
Primates (including humans) and many other animals are gregarious, social creatures. It predates any sort of human society, including religion; indeed, it predates humanity.
Kindly stop implying that moral values come from religion. They don't. That's insulting bullshit, and it's often using by certain religious individuals to insinuate that nonreligious people are morally inferior.
You're also putting the cart before the horse. That the Code of Hammurabi indeed mentions his anointment by the gods to dictate laws is rather more reflective of the legitimacy religion can lend to secular authority than that the gods Anu and Bel were the source of the king's notions on what was or was not moral.
Your notions on AIDS in Africa also miss the point. Abstinence-only education doesn't work. Period. It doesn't work in the United States, as any number of studies have shown, and it does not work in Africa, even though many African nations are per capita among the most devout Christians on Earth - something I know from personal experience, as well.
People have sex.
It's the most basic biological urge. It is the entire biological reason you live. Even the most devout beliefs and a lifetime of dedication often fail against the power of the most basic biological urge - simply look at how many priests have been caught having broken celibacy vows. What chance do millions upon millions of teenagers who lack such convictions have?
The AIDS plague in Africa is one of the most horrific humanitarian disasters in the entire history of humanity. The death toll, already horrific, is blossoming to levels that will dwarf anything in history, including both world wars and the Black Death.
That the United States has a standing policy of cutting off humanitarian aid to regions which do not exclusively teach abstinence education (not merely include and encourage it, but teach it and only it and do not provide any other options) goes beyond ill-advised and quite frankly into a monstrous crime against humanity.
That people's lives could have been saved - and not a few people - by the availability of condoms and effective education on birth control, but they have instead suffered and died because a powerful lobby in the world's most powerful nation would rather withhold aid money than allow them to be taught about and provided with access to STD-blocking contraception is.... there aren't words strong enough to describe it. That you defend such a policy - even implicitly - in the same post where you argue religion is the source of all ethics is a bitter irony, even if the two issues are not directly related.
What god do you believe in that would rather people die horribly than use a condom? I would have no respect for such a being even if it could be absolutely proven to exist. There's things a hell of a lot more important than an obscure passage in a ancient religious text that condemns masturbation, and human life is most certainly one of them.

[jpub]

Interesting MacLeans article on religion, entitled 'Is God Poison?'
www.macleans.ca/homepage/...182_104182
--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Fidoohki]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if there is no way to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't that apply to god also?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. But once again "Burden of proof".
The fact is, I can't prove god doesn't exist. However I can prove that everything god is attributed to could have come about by other means and/or just plain didn't happen. The fact is that the existence of god is ridiculous on its face. As patently ridiculous as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the burden is on anybody asserting god exists to prove it. Until you do, I'll have to assume he doens't. Much the same way I will assume that things will fall down and the sun will rise in the east.
Which is fine by me. You have the right to believe as
you wish. What you don't have is the right to tell me
my beliefs are 'patiently ridiculous'. However I guess the day
we die will answer everything or not. If you are right then
I'll never know I was wrong. If I'm right...when you die you
will. So ask me who's better off?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to tell me that the AID epidemic in africa is caused solely by dirty needles and blood transfusions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said absitenence would mena noone would get AIDS. You were wrong.

I did? Where did I say that? But think about it for a moment.
The only reason I know of to catch aids other than the direct
exchange of body fluids is through needle contaminated by
HIV tainted blood or a transfusion with said blood. If absintence takes care of the unprotected sex then where
does the contaminated blood come from? Pre existing cases?
Maybe but not to gnereate the levels of an epidemic. Canabalism? Possible but again not in a great amounts. So
where would it come from?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with that is that those values had to come from
a religious source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Animals exhibit moralistic behaviour all the time. It is entirely possible for the morals and values we hold to be totally derived from biological pressures, and there are quite a few studies supporting this.
Granted, we haven't seen a society develop morals without a religon of some kind, but we also haven't seen any society develop from scracth without a religion. However, it should be noted that societies such as Native American, Oriental and others have all managed to have moral people in them without paying lipservice to the Abrahamic diety.
I never said it wasn't possible the point is.. it didn't.
Sorry mutli-diety religions are still religions so my statement
holds true.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, answer me this:
The pope issues a statement condeming antibiotics. He calls them evil and says that all good Christians should refrain from using them.
Is this wrong? Or is it just him exercising his beliefs?
There are groups that still believe that in the world by the
way.
IF it was his view then yes he can say that but there's a difference between his view and the view of the church.
You seem to be operating on the beleif taht he can say what he wants and it is taken as the holy word. Which isn't the case. It takes a lot of resrearch and debate among
theologists and priest to come to a religious consensous
on a subject. Then it's given to the pope for review and
approval or disapproval I think.. not sure on that part.

Anyway i'll answer the rests then drop out. I'm not as good at
debating as the rest of you and it's showing so better to quit
while things are on relatively good terms.

[Rev Dark]

The article is rather disingenuous in representing the Atheist viewpoint, especially Dawkins, for whom the author has a particular dislike.
What we are seeing a resurgence of is the willingness to question faith. Faith should not be an off limits discussion, especially when that faith is being used as a weapon to spew intolerance, hatred, violence and ignorance. This is all faiths, from the big three monotheistic faiths down through all the festive variations from A to Z or Rastafarianism to Pastafarianism.
The author states that Whatever else God may be, he is most assuredly not dead
God was never alive to begin with. The existence of God as an idea that refuses to go away; like that picture you saw on the internet that was so disturbing that it is forever burned into your retinas? You could get away with that tortured construction. But then again, that is all god, any god has ever been. An idea; perhaps even a question. Our ancestors did not understand, so they called it god. They wanted a spiritual enforcer for a worldly authority, so they called it god. From all over the world, cultures emerged and created gods. Funny thing is that with a few notable exceptions, the gods mirrored the people who created them; gods being created in the image of man, who then are given stories of creating man in their image. Gods were animals. Gods were the sky. Gods were the water. The stars. The night. Food and Starvation. Death and birth. Kings, emperor and messiahs became gods or at least called themselves gods, buttressing their earthly power with some non-existent supernatural authority. When cultures clashed and fought, conquered and were conquered, traded and interacted their was a god bleed, gods moving from culture to culture, sometimes taking aspects of previous gods, sometimes merging into new ones. As cultures changed, their gods changed with them, and like the people who made them the gods reproduced, married, consorted, killed and raped. Sometimes in that order.
While gods were sometimes called upon to enforce morality, they were never the source of that morality. Morality comes from a combination of biological imperative and social contract. Religion was an early form of social contract, but we have much better ones. While some are quick to point out that our morals come from god (presumably the Christian flavor of god), this is simply not the case. The Old and New Testament are not moral books. They have some high points that you can, from the perspective or our current social condition, agree with, and points that you can, also from our current social perspective, disagree with. You cherry pick at any given time and glibly ignore (or make tortuous excuses for) the parts you dont agree with. The same can be said of the Koran, the Talmud, the Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh or even the Kama Sutra (which requires as much physical as theological flexibility).
Now before Pascal's wager comes up, I will dismiss it. Pascal's wager is predicated on it being your particular imaginary friend that rules the everafter. You might have given your heart to Jesus, but it is Thor that rules the universe and he thinks you are a twat and Valhalla has a strong policy against twats. Sorry.
No god, no easter bunny, no tooth fairy and no Uncle Mikey. They are all stories; stories that help a culture explain their interpretation of good and evil or how to act in a particular situation.
As Uncle Mikey asks Can you tell the difference between Good is Evil? Is the man being good to the cow? Or evil? You could ask the same thing about Zeus, especially in reference to the story of Io, but you may come up with a different answer.
Shayne

[jpub]

Rev,
Have you by any chance read David Hume's works? --
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Epsilon]

---

Which is fine by me. You have the right to believe as
you wish. What you don't have is the right to tell me
my beliefs are 'patiently ridiculous'. However I guess the day
we die will answer everything or not. If you are right then
I'll never know I was wrong. If I'm right...when you die you
will. So ask me who's better off?

---

If you were on this board claiming that the tooth fiary was real, I would be perfectly right to call your beliefs patently ridiculous. And yes, you refer to Pascal's Wager. It states, to summarize, "If god doens't exist and I worship him, no big lose when i die. If he does, and I fail to, I will be condemned to hell when I die. Therefore, it is only logical to believe in god."
Which is fine, but what god? Jesus? The god of Abraham? Allah? Buddha? Wodin? Gaia? Eris? The Flying Spagetti Monster?
Which "god" is correct. There is no proof that any of them exist, and you are taking a huge wager in trying to please a god that may either not exist, or mya be opposed to your worship of a "false religon" and damn you to hell for it.

---

I did? Where did I say that?

---

---

I've never heard of virgins getting STDs

---

---

You seem to be operating on the beleif taht he can say what he wants and it is taken as the holy word. Which isn't the case.

---

I suggest you read up on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I the Pope tomorrow declared that the Earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle and evoked his office in doing so then every Catholic must accept that as an article of faith.
Granted you could deny it, but doing so basically makes you a protestant.
------------------
Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

From Fidoohki

---

Which is fine by me. You have the right to believe as
you wish. What you don't have is the right to tell me
my beliefs are 'patiently ridiculous'. However I guess the day
we die will answer everything or not. If you are right then
I'll never know I was wrong. If I'm right...when you die you
will. So ask me who's better off?

---

Actually everyone has the right to tell you that your beliefs are patently ridiculous. You have every right to defend your beliefs, but in that defense, you will be required to put up or shut up.
Now for example, let us posit that you believe that you are Benito Mussolini, Mr. Hung-from-a-lamp-post-and-shot. This personal belief is going to be subject to intense scrutiny, and will have very little support as to your claim. It is very lonely pretending to be Mussolini but you get nice hats. Now pretend that you believe in an imaginary creator of the universe, who loves you, but if you piss him off he burns you forever, a being capable of creating the entire magnificence of the cosmos, but still finds the time to get intensely upset if you spray your nut-butter after a tug over a razzle mag. Unlike the loneliness of being Mussolini, you have an entire group of people sharing a common interpretation of a patently ridiculous belief. Two churches over, there is another group who share a common interpretation of that same patently ridiculous belief, but with a few festive variations.
What you don't have is the right to tell me, my beliefs are 'patiently (patently?) ridiculous. I have to return to this statement again because it bothers me hugely. There are arse-hats out there using this same line, backed up by whatever imaginary friend they kowtow to, to do ludicrous things. Child marriage (Fundamentalist LDS, some Muslim faiths, etc.) denying life saving medical treatments (Jehovahs Witness), abstinence only education (Did you catch the latest report on the effectiveness of AO education? More proof that AO education is bollocks) no rubber johnnies (Roman Catholic). I wont even start in on the young earth creationists, for whom all the beavers are not working on the dam although I will grant them one more beaver than the flat-earthers.
As I said above, I have every right to tell you your beliefs are patently ridiculous; you have every right to rebut mine; but if you want to do so, you better be ready to prove it.
Shayne
P.S. Jpub, I have read Hume and Bentham (I havent covered the entire Philosophers Song, but have made pretty good inroads.) I am much more inclined towards Dawkins and Sagan (Especially the Demon Haunted World) and have recently been digging into Ehrman and other studies of the emergence of the testaments (old and new).
PPS. AO Education - A good overview
www.theregister.co.uk/200...bstinence/
And the report
www.mathematica-mpr.com/p...inence.pdf

[CattyNebulart]

I don't have time to read this entire tread so I'll just point you all to my trusty bible/quran/book of mormon, where all the answers lie. We should definitly go back to what the bible teaches us, esspeially about women.
skepticsannotatedbible.com/
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[jpub]

Heh. Nice site, CB. Amusing as all heck.
Rev:
Yeah, I thought so, you've got a pretty utilitarian philosophy going on there.--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
"Camaraderie, adventure, and steel on steel. The stuff of legend! Right, Boo?"

[Kokuten]

---

That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.

---

then you have a problem with "Organized Religion" taken as a whole, and the pope in particular.
In the originating post of this thread, Rev Dark took a chunk out of the pope for a very valid reason, and you have failed to rebut or address this reason.
So lemme restate, filtered through my own perceptions.
Is it moral to teach our children unthinking acceptance of a belief that is not supported by experimental or historical evidence as equivalent to a scientific hypothesis which is currently supported by the vast majority of historical and experimental evidence?

And now that I'm done with the whole logic thing, piss off.
Get your god the fuck out of my educational system. Stop letting god corrupt the childrens minds and program them to be weak-minded amoral shitstains.Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Fidoohki]

Sorry for the delay. Lot to shift through
Epsilon:
"If you were on this board claiming that the tooth fiary was real, I would be perfectly right to call your beliefs patently ridiculous. And yes, you refer to Pascal's Wager. It states, to summarize, "If god doens't exist and I worship him, no big lose when i die. If he does, and I fail to, I will be condemned to hell when I die. Therefore, it is only logical to believe in god."
Which is fine, but what god? Jesus? The god of Abraham? Allah? Buddha? Wodin? Gaia? Eris? The Flying Spagetti Monster?
Which "god" is correct. There is no proof that any of them exist, and you are taking a huge wager in trying to please a god that may either not exist, or mya be opposed to your worship of a "false religon" and damn you to hell for it."
But which is better? To do something in good faith and be wrong or do nothing and be wrong? Pascal's wager examplifies
this I think. Sure I could be wrong but at least i tried and I'm
willing to accept the consequences of that. Sometimes you
don't have the luxury of always knowing the right thing to do.
Also I stand corrected as far as virgins and stds though if
everyone did practice abstinance I don't see how the STDs
could get into the system to begin with..
and I am a protestant well pretty much anyway.

Ayiekie:
Well I could grant you the primates but dolphins? Come on. You are applying modern techniques to ancient societies.
Something that too many people tend to do. Now Rev dark
makes a point that it could ahve come from 'social contract'
but that contract hasd to be based on religious not secular
values. Hence morality starting from Reglion is correct. IMO
anyway. Since then it has perpetuated through famial, societial and religious influences. Sort of like a perpetual motion machine, though now a days I wonder of if it isn't
breaking down....
As for africa, You assume the USA has a duty to help them.
Hate to tell you this but the USA chooses to help and the gov.
have the right to add whatever restrictions on that help
as The goverment sees fit. You may not like it and to
be honest I don't like it myself but that is the way it is.
Better than most other countries that don't help much at
all.
Rev Dark:
I've reread alot of the posts and I realized that I was guilty
of doing the very thing I was opposing. The pushing of my
beliefs on someone else. As far as that goes I apologize.
I can't prove to you that god exists. However, You can't
prove to me he doesn't either. Since you have hinted
that I am delusional (('beleiving in an ' imaginary friend') and
everything I say is suspect I can hint at the belief that
you are a religious fanatic and hold the same suspicion.
Athiesm is a religion after all.
And you do have the right to say want you want. I was mistaken again.
I did read the report you linked in. I'd suggest you go with
the facts and not the left wing crapfest of the register.
However, I find it strange that none of the scientists
asked the question 'why'?. Also page 42 of the report
seems to be confusing on how they got their control
group together. If the control group is the one they
compare the answers of the program group to then it is
majorly flawed.

Kokuten:
I think that what is required in
school should be taught there while what the church teaches
should be taught in church. Then you can choose which one
you wish to beleive. As for the rest.
Shove it.
And letting the goverment teach your children any better?
That is asking to turn them into fascists..or worse.
Everyone: I don't buy biological function as an excuse for abstinance failure. That would excuse rape because the
rapist was follow his biological urges, which is ridiculous. We are thinking beings with the ability to choose. Not animals
that have no choice but to follow our instincts. there
are millions of adult virgins in the world. Just because
something is popular and feels good doesn't make it
right.

[Valles]

---

But which is better? To do something in good faith and be wrong or do nothing and be wrong? Pascal's wager examplifies this I think. Sure I could be wrong but at least i tried and I'm willing to accept the consequences of that. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of always knowing the right thing to do.

---

I'd've said you never do.
That being the case, I have a choice between:
1. Following a policy based on the recognition of my connection to my environment and the fact that damage to it, from any source, in turn impacts my own existence to greater or lesser degree.
Or
2. Trusting the word of a caste whose livelihoods depend on their ability to persuade others.
...gee, I fuckin' wonder.

---

As for africa, You assume the USA has a duty to
help them.

---

Human beings have a duty to help them. Nationality is irrelevant except to the extent that the government is in the employ of its citizens.

---

Better than most other countries that don't help much at all.

---

Source, please?

---

Also page 42 of the report seems to be confusing on how they got their control group together. If the control group is the one they compare the answers of the program group to then it is majorly flawed.

---

...What on earth are you talking about? Page 42 has nothing to do with the gathering of the control group - or any group at all! It talks about how each of the groups does at identifying STDs!

---

I don't buy biological function as an excuse for abstinance failure. That would excuse rape because the
rapist was follow his biological urges, which is ridiculous. We are thinking beings with the ability to choose. Not animals that have no choice but to follow our instincts. there are millions of adult virgins in the world. Just because
something is popular and feels good doesn't make it right.

---

And at last we come to the paragraph that persuaded me to jump into this mess.
First, an elementary-level distinction: Rape causes harm against the will of the victim. By definition.
Sex, in and of itself, does not hurt people. STDs and pregnancy are outside factors that attach to the act - and which can be seperated from it.
Second: The moral component of the choice between abstinence and sexual activity - presuming that one is agreed to exist, which, as you might've guessed, I actually don't - is not under question here. In fact, it is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!
The question is, does the dissemination of limited or falsified information about the relative consequences of abstinence, condom use, and other methods of birth control materially impact the rate at which people actually abstain from sexual activity?
Unless I'm greatly misreading that paper's results, the honest answer is a clear, unqualified, and resounding "No."
In which case, the only interpretation I'm capable of putting on an effort to keep people from gaining access to the information they could use to protect themselves is criminal malice and irresponsibility.
Ja, -n

===============================================
"I'm terribly sorry, but I have to kill you quite horribly now."

[rmthorn]

---

I can't prove to you that god exists. However, You can't prove to me he doesn't either.

---

I'm curious why someone would believe in something that can't be proved to exist. What about all of the other things that haven't yet been proven to not exist, like ghosts, fairies, alien abductions, invisible incorporeal dragons in my garage, etc? Do you believe in them too? And if not, why not? What's the distinction?
Pascal's Wager seems like a pretty crappy reason to follow a religion. So you're saying that you only believe in a God because something bad might happen to you if you don't? Does that mean that you don't really believe, and you're just appearing to do so because that seems like the right thing to do?

---

Well I could grant you the primates but dolphins? Come on. You are applying modern techniques to ancient societies. Something that too many people tend to do. Now Rev dark makes a point that it could ahve come from 'social contract' but that contract hasd to be based on religious not secular values.

---

One of Jared Diamond's books ("The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee", I think), discusses this concept in quite a lot of detail for both humans and several species of animals (including ants). Read it. It's very good.
Another thing, if all human morality comes from religion, then why do primates exhibit the same behaviour? As far as we know, they're not religious. Also, humans around the world take care of each other and have done so for millennia, despite their different religions. Doesn't that perhaps hint that religion came from human morality instead of other way around?
EDIT: Found this. It's a National Geographic Article re: chimps cooperating with each other.

[Ayiekie]

---

But which is better? To do something in good faith and be wrong or do nothing and be wrong? Pascal's wager examplifies
this I think.

---

Pascal's Wager exemplifies not acting in good faith. As the article I linked to you pointed out, someone who does good things for fear of God is not taking any sort of moral highground at all. A calculated weighing of the risks of believing in a god versus not believing in one is the very antithesis of "good faith", and if you believe in God, it seems odd you believe he'd reward such calculation.

---

Also I stand corrected as far as virgins and stds though if
everyone did practice abstinance I don't see how the STDs
could get into the system to begin with..

---

1) If everyone practiced abstinence, the human race would end.
2) Why the hell should anybody of a reasonable age have to practice abstinence or die horribly? Why should they be given inaccurate information and kept from possibly life-saving birth control methods?

---

Well I could grant you the primates but dolphins? Come on.

---

Dolphins have been shown to be just as or more intelligent than chimpanzees in more than one study.

---

You are applying modern techniques to ancient societies.
Something that too many people tend to do.

---

Kindly explain exactly what you mean.

---

Hence morality starting from Reglion is correct. IMO
anyway.

---

Prove it. Peer-reviewed scientific studies, please.

---

Sort of like a perpetual motion machine, though now a days I wonder of if it isn't
breaking down....

---

Then you'll be thrilled to know that the world, for all its problems, is probably the nicest it's ever been in human history. This is especially pronounced in the increasingly secular regions of the world.

---

As for africa, You assume the USA has a duty to help them.
Hate to tell you this but the USA chooses to help and the gov. have the right to add whatever restrictions on that help as The goverment sees fit. You may not like it and to
be honest I don't like it myself but that is the way it is.
Better than most other countries that don't help much at
all.

---

First off, "most other countries that don't help much at all"?
Of the world's 22 wealthiest countries, the United States has consistantly been either last or among the last in giving foreign aid (as a percentage of GDP). The only country with a worse record in foreign aid is Italy, since 2004. The country who gives the most foreign aid as percentage of GDP is Japan. Nor do the US's levels of private giving match those of most European or Scandinavian countries.
Second, it is very easily arguable - and demonstrable through many studies on the subject - that US-approved abstinence-only education is probably worse than nothing at all, seeing as how it spreads deceitful disinformation, and prevents the distribution of STD-stopping birth control.
Third, your religion fails miserably once again to be a source from where morality flows, despite lots of passages that says it should:
Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Deuteronomy 26:12 - When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;
Psalm 41:1 - Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.
Psalm 82:3-4 - Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Proverbs 3:3 - Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
Proverbs 22:9 - He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.
Would you like me to continue (because I can, believe me)? How exactly is the US's miserly policy - which includes lying, explicitly forbidden in the Bible - towards aid (and AIDS) in Africa reflect upon its status as a God-fearing nation?
It's sure as hell not defensible on secular morality, and it's not defensible on Christian morality, and it's not defensible based on agreements the US government made (in 1970, the US and many other nations pledged .7% of GDP to foreign aid, a total it has never come close to meeting, it currently donates about .16% - in fairness, it should be noted it's hardly the only one, but once again, has consistantly been one of the worst offenders).
What exactly is it defensible on?
James 2:19-20 : Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

---

However, You can't
prove to me he doesn't either.

---

As has been pointed out to you many times, you can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. You can't prove anything
doesn't exist. Does that mean everything that has ever been conceived is real?

---

And letting the goverment teach your children any better?
That is asking to turn them into fascists..or worse.

---

So, since the government has been setting public school curriculums for as long as everyone in the US has been alive, what you are saying is that nearly everyone in the US is a fascist?

---

Everyone: I don't buy biological function as an excuse for abstinance failure.

---

Then kindly explain what your excuse IS for why it fails every single time. Which it does, as you have been given ample material to demonstrate, and could be given ample more.
You have also failed to answer the question I asked, to wit: If the US refuses to allow birth control to be distributed in African nations on religious grounds (which it does), do you think that (in the certain knowledge this will cause many people to die painfully who would otherwise have a chance to live) this is right? Why, or why not?

[Kokuten]

HTML Comments are not allowedWire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979

[Fidoohki]

"...What on earth are you talking about? Page 42 has nothing to do with the gathering of the control group - or any group at all! It talks about how each of the groups does at identifying STDs!"

Chapter III
Design and Methods for the Final Impact Evaluation
Sample Intake and Random Assignment
3rd paragraph
... which is page 42 on my Adobe reader page counter. My mistake.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for africa, You assume the USA has a duty to
help them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human beings have a duty to help them. Nationality is irrelevant except to the extent that the government is in the employ of its citizens.
Then why do they need the goverment to do it for them? All a
goverment is an organization that is supposed to look out
for it's people right?

Better than most other countries that don't help much at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source, please?
This was just plain wrong on my part. No excuse for it
either. However:
www.nationmaster.com/grap...-aid-donor
is a more accurate stat. The US may be near the lowest on
the list by GDP but 4th highest by sheer funds given.
------------------------------------------------
First, an elementary-level distinction: Rape causes harm against the will of the victim. By definition.
------------------------------------------------
Rape is any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. According to the Link:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
The point is that while the majority of rape is hate related
there is a minority that is just biological urge. Drugged
rape in particular seem to fit this pattern.
Note that the reason is irrelevant as far as punishment
for a rape goes but if you beleive sex is just a natural
biological urge then certain types of rapes are the
same thing. Which in my opinion is Ridiculous.
---------------------------------------------
Sex, in and of itself, does not hurt people. STDs and pregnancy are outside factors that attach to the act - and which can be seperated from it.
---------------------------------------------

Limit the chance yes. Seperate? how? Sterilization? Works
for pregnancies but STDs? Rubbers? Limit the chance yes
but you'd better hope they don't break or you could be
in a world of problems.

------------------------------------
Second: The moral component of the choice between abstinence and sexual activity - presuming that one is agreed to exist, which, as you might've guessed, I actually don't - is not under question here. In fact, it is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!
---------------------------------------------
For someone who doesn't know faith this is right. For those
that teach it and live by example though it's hypocresy(?)
A religious missionary in Africa in your view should say:
"My beleifs mean nothing. here, have some rubbers. "
If their beleifs are nothing then they wouldn't be there in
the first place. So who would fill the void?